On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Willy Tarreau wrote:
<CUT>
> Well, what would you think of the following then :
>
> If no timeout.check is set, use inter (exactly like now)
OK.
> if timeout.check is set, use it as the maximum time for the whole test to
> succeed, which means both the connect timeout, and the rest.
This is exactly was I would like to avoid. It means that it will take "inter + (fall-1)*fastinter + fall*timeout.check" to detect a down server, for example:
inter = 15s
fastinter = 1s
timeout connect = 4s
timeout check = 10s
fall = 4
Total: 15 + 3*1 + 4*10 = 58s (~1m)
What we currently have is:
"inter + (fall-1)*fastinter + fall*min(inter, timeout.connect)"
Total: 15 + 3*1 + 4*4 = 34s (~two times faster)
Right, it still takes ~1m to detect a overloaded server - one that accepts SYNs but is too busy to send an answer, but in some (most?) cases we are faster.
Best regards,
Krzysztof Olędzki Received on 2008/02/15 22:25
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 2008/02/15 22:31 CET