Re: Changes in the check timeouts

From: Krzysztof Oledzki <ole#ans.pl>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:25:48 +0100 (CET)

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