Re: Weights
pb <[email protected]> Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:30:19 -0800 (PST)
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.redhat.piranha |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
If you're talking about using weighted (as in weighted-least-connections) load balancing, the weights themselves are relative, not absolute. Like this, lets say you set the weight of ServerA to 1, ServerB to 1, and ServerC to 2, then you use this formula: Total weight = 1 + 1 + 2 = 4 ServerA utilization = 1 / 4 = .25 ServerB utilization = 1 / 4 = .25 ServerC utilization = 2 / 4 = .5 In short, Piranha will utilize ServerC 50% of the time, while ServerA and ServerB 25% of the time. One would assume ServerC is the fastest CPU of the three. PB --- Jason Dunn <[email protected]> wrote: > I've set the weights of three real servers to be 100 > as they all have > the same specs, but after one or more gets a > significant load, the > weights shoot up to around 1000. This I don't have > a problems with, but > after the load is gone from all of the machines, the > weights stay up > around 1000. Is this normal? If it is, is there > documentation that > states why? > > Thanks, > Jason > > > > -- > Jason Dunn > RHCE 803005297814115 > Linux Systems Administrator > CLC/TLT/ITS - Penn State University > > _______________________________________________ > Piranha-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/piranha-list __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com