From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 15 12:07:53 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CB0D106564A for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:07:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) Received: from cell.glebius.int.ru (glebius.int.ru [81.19.64.117]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AA798FC13 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:07:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cell.glebius.int.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cell.glebius.int.ru (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p7FC7p7m046000; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:07:51 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) Received: (from glebius@localhost) by cell.glebius.int.ru (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p7FC7olc045999; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:07:50 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: cell.glebius.int.ru: glebius set sender to glebius@freebsd.org using -f Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:07:50 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff To: David Duchscher Message-ID: <20110815120750.GF43567@glebius.int.ru> References: <20110810160526.GO43567@FreeBSD.org> <5D7408D3-FAA1-4E22-A136-83DC75D47837@tamu.edu> <20110814084813.GA43567@glebius.int.ru> <67BC462C-0F5D-41E2-B739-CFC9EB417FA6@tamu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <67BC462C-0F5D-41E2-B739-CFC9EB417FA6@tamu.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: new CARP implementation X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:07:53 -0000 Hi David and networkers, On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 03:56:28PM -0500, David Duchscher wrote: D> > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 07:32:06PM -0500, David Duchscher wrote: D> > D> My two cents. D> > D> D> > D> We rely on the arp load balance feature. We certainly don't find it useless. Looking at ip load balancing, it would also mean that we would no longer be able to grow bandwidth with additional systems since all boxes must receive all traffic. I only humbling ask that some sort of load balancing feature be included when this goes live. D> > D> > Ok, I will make effort to support it. I will inform when patch would D> > be updated. D> D> Thank you. On closer look it appeared that restoring ARP balancing as it was, isn't going to be easy. The essence of ARP balancing is that different vhids possess the same IP address. Converting that to new scheme would mean that same IP prefixes exist on one interface, which is impossible in current networking stack. And making it possible would be a bloody hack. So I'd prefer to settle current code a bit, commit it to head, after 9.0 is forked and released... Test and settle code a bit more... And then work on ARP and IP balancing. That would probably require bringing in some intermediate structure along with struct carp_softc, that would group softcs into balancing groups. That is already done in OpenBSD. Not sure that our balancing would be compatible with OpenBSD's, however the current is not already, since OpenBSD changed their hashing function after we merged carp(4) to FreeBSD. -- Totus tuus, Glebius.