Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:06:20 -0500 From: David Duchscher <daved@tamu.edu> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Cc: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: new CARP implementation Message-ID: <E2D7B3D7-27D0-488C-9873-23912A803B0C@tamu.edu> In-Reply-To: <20110815132825.GJ43567@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> <20110815120750.GF43567@glebius.int.ru> <A23AEC0C-6C23-4FC9-B36A-01CF3DE1311F@tamu.edu> <20110815132825.GJ43567@glebius.int.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Apple-Mail=_D970B3AE-0BA8-4152-9F6C-140F88DC8920 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r On Aug 15, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 07:56:14AM -0500, David Duchscher wrote: > D> > On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 03:56:28PM -0500, David Duchscher wrote: > D> > D> > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 07:32:06PM -0500, David Duchscher = wrote: > D> > D> > D> My two cents. > D> > D> > D>=20 > 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> >=20 > D> > D> > Ok, I will make effort to support it. I will inform when = patch would > D> > D> > be updated. > D> > D>=20 > D> > D> Thank you. > D> >=20 > D> > On closer look it appeared that restoring ARP balancing as it = was, isn't going > D> > to be easy. The essence of ARP balancing is that different vhids = possess the > D> > same IP address. Converting that to new scheme would mean that = same IP prefixes > D> > exist on one interface, which is impossible in current networking = stack. And > D> > making it possible would be a bloody hack. > D> >=20 > D> > So I'd prefer to settle current code a bit, commit it to head, = after 9.0 is > D> > forked and released... Test and settle code a bit more... And = then work on > D> > ARP and IP balancing. That would probably require bringing in = some intermediate > D> > structure along with struct carp_softc, that would group softcs = into > D> > balancing groups. That is already done in OpenBSD. Not sure that = our balancing > D> > would be compatible with OpenBSD's, however the current is not = already, since > D> > OpenBSD changed their hashing function after we merged carp(4) to = FreeBSD. > D>=20 > D> This sound good to me. I have no requirement for compatibility = with OpenBSD. In addition, we only use the extended support versions of = FreeBSD so 9.0 will not be something we will put into production. >=20 > The new CARP isn't going to appear in 9.x, since I am too late with my = patch. It > would be present in 10.0 and later. However, I plan to maintain an = easily applicable > patch for 9.x. >=20 > However, I'd suggest you to try new CARP earlier than 10.1-RELEASE is = out. May be in > a test lab. I'm afraid that number of people utilizing ARP balancing = is so small, > that without your testing, feature would go untested into release ;) Already do. We have over 20k devices that are behind NAT run on top of = FreeBSD so its rather important we don't break it. :) Thanks for the update, -- DaveD --Apple-Mail=_D970B3AE-0BA8-4152-9F6C-140F88DC8920--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E2D7B3D7-27D0-488C-9873-23912A803B0C>