Cookie persistence and intermittent node failure

Actually.. Action on Service Down plays into the very behavior he's looking for..

 

 

I've done extensive testing on the behavior of pool members and the action on service down settings.. For the record "reselect" does not behave how you may think/want it to.. At least in the later versions of 9.4.8 where I tested most. I've opened several cases on this..

 

 

Reselect will not automatically "move" connections to available hosts if constant data is coming in from that host to a server that is responding on that connection.. For one to undoubtedly stop connections to that server, you would have to use "reject" which will send a rst to client and server.. but that's not what AndOs is looking for..

 

 

None should give you the behavior you're looking for as long as the tcp connection is still established, client sending and server still responding..

 

 

LTM: Action on Service Down

 

 

http://devcentral.f5.com/Tutorials/TechTips/tabid/63/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/179/LTM-Action-on-Service-Down.aspx

 

 

None (default)

 

LTM will continue to send data on established connections as long as client is sending and server is responding. Connection management / recovery / cleanup is via standard TCP mechanics for both clientside and serverside flows.

 

 

Use "None" if you don't want LTM to intervene in managing either side of the connection. Useful if your servers may not be accepting new connections, but should be allowed to continue servicing existing connections when marked DOWN. Also supports custom monitoring designed to support connection bleeding and other non-standard state management schemes.

 

 

 

 

The session cookie should last as long as the "session".. So I believe as long as their browser is open.. I don't believe it's the cookie timing out, it's the connection.. You may be able to get around this be removing your optimization profiles and setting up a TCP profile and changing your "idle-timeout", default 300 seconds..

 

 

 

 

See if that works for you.. I'm also not sure why you have priorities assigned to pool members of 1.. doesn't look like it should make a difference.. I don't see a minimum active members command with it.. I know they don't display by default like that in 10.2.. but I don't remember in prior versions.. what version are you running?