1.30 is the first version to support Maglev hashing: https://lwn.net/Articles/792617/
1.31 is available in Bullseye, so hopefully this is trivial.
Description
Description
| Status | Subtype | Assigned | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resolved | BCornwall | T263797 Switch Source Hashing ('sh') scheduling on LVS hosts to Maglev hashing ('mh') | |||
| Resolved | BCornwall | T263788 backport ipvsadm>=1.30 to buster-wikimedia or buster-backports |
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
Turns out this was trivial. 1:1.31-1+deb10u1 is now in buster-wikimedia. I'll test on some backup LVS machine tomorrow or early next week.
Comment Actions
JFTR; 1:1.31-1+deb10u1 is not an ideal version for an internal backport; better use 1:1.31-1~deb10u1 or 1:1.31-0+deb10u1 for future backports: If there's no further upload of ipvsadm in the remaining development cycle of Debian bullseye, then 1:1.31-1 would become the next stable version in Buster and 1:1.31-1+deb10u1 sorts higher than that, which can cause issues on dist-upgrades since the older version is retained. We typically reimage, though (with the odd exceptions), so we can simply keep the current version as-is, just a remark for future backports.
Comment Actions
Ah, sorry, I didn't think that hard about sort order. It's been many, many years now since I had an @debian.org email address.
Comment Actions
The swap of Traffic for Traffic-Icebox in this ticket's set of tags was based on a bulk action for all such tickets that haven't been updated in 6 months or more. This does not imply any human judgement about the validity or importance of the task, and is simply the first step in a larger task cleanup effort. Further manual triage and/or requests for updates will happen this month for all such tickets. For more detail, have a look at the extended explanation on the main page of Traffic-Icebox . Thank you!
Comment Actions
Considering there's an ongoing effort to upgrade traffic hosts to Buster (T321309), is this necessary any more? I do see a some hosts with the new package but some with the old, so I'm not sure of the status of the backport. @CDanis, was there something holding up the upgrade for the remaining hosts?
Comment Actions
No, the only thing remaining was just making sure there were no surprise incompatibilities or other issues. With any upgrade to Buster or later, this should indeed be obsolete.
Comment Actions
I spoke with @BBlack and he suggests that, since it's relatively simple to upgrade the remaining hosts to 1.31 we should do that, at the very least, for consistency across the fleet. Since the LVS replacement project may take some months to complete we'll go ahead and update so it unblocks T263797.
Thanks for your work on this, @CDanis!