From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 12 12:50:51 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 073B416A421 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:50:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-hackers@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D41513C469 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:50:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-hackers@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IVRfK-0003z6-3G for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:49:58 +0200 Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:49:58 +0200 Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:49:58 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:49:44 +0200 Lines: 50 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-ripemd160; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigBAA28A362493814AD72FBA79" X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20060911) In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.4.0 Sender: news Subject: Re: TCP/IP redundant connections X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:50:51 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigBAA28A362493814AD72FBA79 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Artem Kazakov wrote: > So I want to utilize IP-sharing and TCP-connection synchronization > (which is not yet implemented by anyone as far as I know). I want it > in case of failure seamlessly to switch to the other machine. As far > as the internal state is synchronized, if it is possible to > synchronize open connections as well(and all the low level stuff as > packet sequence numbers and so on) it would allow to make switch-over > to the back-up server in a matter of seconds, and the clients would > stay connected. I don't know if you already considered this, but the above looks like=20 both machines would simultaneously process a single TCP connection. So,=20 when a TCP connection request (handshake) arrives, you want both of the=20 machines to respond? Further on: You'll confuse the remote application and waste bandwidth if = you send two responses to every TCP packet you receive. And on: What about the applications running on the two machines: if the=20 remote client send e.g. a request to delete a resource (just an=20 example): would both servers receive and respond to the request? etc, etc. Have you read the manual for carp(4) and why isn't CARP good enough for=20 what you need? --------------enigBAA28A362493814AD72FBA79 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG5+BoldnAQVacBcgRAy7XAJ4o0zli6gEEQe/EPkGzoPARhcM6yACbBLvc iO+GYZnleStHRrfpsVWtnyw= =2PlV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigBAA28A362493814AD72FBA79--