Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[1\/2\]\s+CARP\s+implementation\.\s+HA\s+master\'s\s+failover\.\s*$/: 50 ]

Total 50 documents matching your query.

1. [1/2] CARP implementation. HA master's failover. (score: 1)
Author: y Toptygin <alexeyt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:36:35 +0400
-- Evgeniy Polaykov ( s0mbre ) Crash is better than data corruption. -- Art Grabowski Attachment: carp.c Description: Text Data Attachment: carp.h Description: Text Data Attachment: carp_ioctl.h Desc
/archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00392.html (12,323 bytes)

2. Re: [1/2] CARP implementation. HA master's failover. (score: 1)
Author: itsw@xxxxxxxxxxx (Margit Schubert-While)
Date: 15 Jul 2004 10:44:14 -0400
Why do you need to put this stuff in the kernel? This should be implemented just the same way as VRRP was - in user space. BTW, is there a spec for this protocol or its one of those things where you
/archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00393.html (9,184 bytes)

3. Re: [1/2] CARP implementation. HA master's failover. (score: 1)
Author: avid Stevens <dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:27:24 +0400
Hmm... Just because i think it works better being implemented in the kernel? :) I don't think it is a good answer thought. It is faster, it is more flexible, it has access to kernel space... Exactly
/archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00396.html (11,333 bytes)

4. Re: [1/2] CARP implementation. HA master's failover. (score: 1)
Author: is Friesen <cfriesen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:55:36 +0400
Just an addition[from private e-mail]: UCARP Userspace can't in principle. Current kernel implementation can't too, but it can. In principle. But better implementation should use both carp and ct_syn
/archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00397.html (12,748 bytes)

5. Re: [1/2] CARP implementation. HA master's failover. (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: 15 Jul 2004 12:07:02 -0400
Yeah, I know ;-> and probably thats what the opnebsd people did. I still think it should live in user space. This should apply to anything thats control related because such things tend to be contino
/archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00398.html (13,050 bytes)

6. Re: [1/2] CARP implementation. HA master's failover. (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 15 Jul 2004 12:28:20 -0400
Easy with current traffic control extensions. We need an action written for this. User space dameon controls it. cheers, jamal
/archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00400.html (10,183 bytes)

7. Re: [1/2] CARP implementation. HA master's failover. (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 20:59:17 +0400
Load balancing between different computers? How nodes will know about each other using only tc extension? Kernel traps packet, send info about it to userspace, it decides drop it or not... Not very f
/archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00404.html (11,914 bytes)

8. Re: [1/2] CARP implementation. HA master's failover. (score: 1)
Author: @xxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 20:59:20 +0400
Userspace is too slow. It can only initiate master's failover, load balancing is a good example here - userspace _itself_ can not control real time traffic. ct_sync module does this. It uses connecti
/archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00405.html (14,889 bytes)

9. Re: [1/2] CARP implementation. HA master's failover. (score: 1)
Author: x>
Date: 15 Jul 2004 13:24:45 -0400
What is it that CARP does that couldnt be achieved by VRRP? VRRP is implemented in user space. As a user myself i can assure you even with heartbeats at 100ms granularity i have seen no issues which
/archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00408.html (14,084 bytes)

10. Re: [1/2] CARP implementation. HA master's failover. (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 15 Jul 2004 13:30:59 -0400
Why do they need to know about each other. Maybe explain a little how said load balancing is achieved. I am hoping CARP knows how to deal with dropped packets. use socket to send to user space. When
/archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00410.html (12,076 bytes)

11. Re: [1/2] CARP implementation. HA master's failover. (score: 1)
Author: x>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 23:53:13 +0400
I will answer a question by question, sorry. Has vrrp some authentification mechanism? Can it be used over IPv6? (CARP also can't but it is _very_ easy to add, I just don't have IPv6 network setup to
/archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00414.html (16,956 bytes)

12. Re: [1/2] CARP implementation. HA master's failover. (score: 1)
Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 23:20:35 +0400
Kind of scuch scenario: If I am a masater, than get half of bandwidth, but if slave count is less than threshold than get more. If I am a slave and slave count is more than threshold than get 0.5/sla
/archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00433.html (13,954 bytes)

13. Re: [1/2] CARP implementation. HA master's failover. (score: 1)
Author: zik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 16 Jul 2004 08:34:42 -0400
Ok, so some controller is in charge - seems like thats something that could be easily done in user space based on mastership transitions. Ok, i wont tell ;-> In VRRP for example its the number of hea
/archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00435.html (13,299 bytes)

14. Re: [1/2] CARP implementation. HA master's failover. (score: 1)
Author: ubert <ahu@xxxxxxx>
Date: 16 Jul 2004 09:04:24 -0400
They (at least used to) claim to be able to do so. Theres effort to have it do v6. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-06.txt I agree its lame to have it as an after thought
/archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00437.html (15,181 bytes)

15. Re: [1/2] CARP implementation. HA master's failover. (score: 1)
Author: ak Saxena <dsaxena@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:06:24 +0400
Yes, but here is tricky but true example: Some time ago e1000 driver from Intel had possibility to do hardware bonding(i absolutely don't remember how it was called, but idea was the same as in bondi
/archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00439.html (15,296 bytes)

16. Re: [1/2] CARP implementation. HA master's failover. (score: 1)
Author: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:06:41 +0400
Hm... Quote from draft-ietf-vrrp-spec-v2-08.txt 5.3.6.1 Authentication Type 0 5.3.6.2 Authentication Type 1 5.3.6.3 Authentication Type 2 1. 8bit virtual host ID. 2. Plain password. 3. HMAC. I think
/archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00440.html (16,020 bytes)

17. Re: [1/2] CARP implementation. HA master's failover. (score: 1)
Author: n@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 17 Jul 2004 07:52:09 -0400
I remeber that cruft. Actually (sadly) people like montavista ship that thing in their distros (under the disguise of carrier grade linux;->). I think the current folks out of intel working on Linux
/archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00462.html (17,252 bytes)

18. Re: [1/2] CARP implementation. HA master's failover. (score: 1)
Author: sson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 16:59:42 +0400
<arguments and contrarguments are skipped> I saw it... May I not comment it? I do not want to look like rude freak... :) Only for now, since we can imagine only some examples now. When number of agen
/archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00463.html (17,548 bytes)

19. Re: [1/2] CARP implementation. HA master's failover. (score: 1)
Author: leen <ak@xxxxxx>
Date: 17 Jul 2004 08:47:34 -0400
[..] Ok, you are right. I do think that there are people who have run this over IPSEC though. I could swear that the current linux based one does. I wish we could get Alexander to comment on this dis
/archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00464.html (12,875 bytes)

20. Re: [1/2] CARP implementation. HA master's failover. (score: 1)
Author: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:00:19 +0400
for something? MICROKERNEL, I see it :) Non broacast/multicast will _strongly_ complicate protocol. Broadcast will waste apprication/kernel "bandwidth". Is it is. CARP may do it, but it requires in-k
/archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00465.html (17,058 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu