Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[lvs\-users\]\s+SNAT\s+with\s+LVS\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[lvs\-users\]\s+SNAT\s+with\s+LVS\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [lvs-users] SNAT with LVS (score: 1): Author: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:10:32 +0900; Architecturally LVS-DR should have an advantage over anything that acts as a proxy as only packets received from the end-user need to pass through the linux-director - return packets bypass it. For t; /html/lvs-users/2013-10/msg00032.html (13,581 bytes)
2. Re: [lvs-users] SNAT with LVS (score: 1): Author: "Nick Calvert" <nick.calvert@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 21:34:15 -0000; Hmm. Very interesting. Thank you very much. Can I take from this that kernel based SNAT is somehow better for lots of concurrent connections? I did see loadbalancer.org use HA proxy - I'd looked into; /html/lvs-users/2013-10/msg00031.html (11,445 bytes)
3. Re: [lvs-users] SNAT with LVS (score: 1): Author: Malcolm Turnbull <malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 20:49:45 +0000; Nick, The SNAT support should work fine for all recent v3 kernels... or 2.6.36 (only). However I would expect that most people use HAProxy for SNAT mode as long as its not a huge number of concurrent; /html/lvs-users/2013-10/msg00030.html (10,097 bytes)
4. [lvs-users] SNAT with LVS (score: 1): Author: "Nick Calvert" <nick.calvert@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 19:29:07 -0000; Hi all, Doing some research to determine how SNAT might work with LVS and I find lots of old talk involving kernel patches. Is this something that is a bit more mainstream these days? Is anyone doing; /html/lvs-users/2013-10/msg00029.html (8,349 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]