> On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 16:16 -0700, Catalin(ux) M. BOIE wrote:
>> I have a need, I didn't wake up some day and I dreamed to change this.
>> I have a gateway with LVS and I have 4 web servers behind.
>> I saw the help text at that option and I saw that I could raise the
> OK, let's ask the same question a different way, after going a little
> further into your posting:
>> I was looking for anything that could get me past of 88.000 request per
>> The help text told me to raise that value if I have big number of
>> connections. I just needed an easy way to test.
> OK, so from here:
> and onward... have you read all of that? It explains how the hash table
> size has been developed over the years, and everything that has changed
> with and relating to it.
> To pull out an example, a hash table size of 21 bits does not give a
> connection limit of 2^21 entries, since each part of the hash is a
> linked list which contains multiple entries, up to the RAM limit in the
> In the HOWTO, the example given shows that for a traffic pattern with 4
> seconds session coherence and 1/8th of the traffic hitting the director
> being a SYN for the available config *appears* to require 2^21 bits.
> However, because each bit of the hash is a linked list, using 17 bits
> gets 16 entries in each list - this is not a problem, as it takes the
> CPU no time at all to search 16 entries.
> What you need to do for us, please, is to demonstrate that your problem
> (not exceeding 88k RPS) is categorically something to do with lookups in
> the hash table. I suspect (although I've been wrong before) that your
> problem is probably to do with the number of interrupts your hardware
> can process. There have been many posts of this type on lvs-users
> recently - search the archives to see what the solutions were.
> We're trying to help, but the collective wisdom here is that the hash
> table size is not the cause of your problem *which you haven't yet
> described fully*.
After some replys I understood that I explained very bad what was my
I was not complaining that hash size is too low or too high.
I just provided a patch that I found useful: allow easy changing of a
variable at boot time and not to recompile the kernel to change it.
So, I didn't hit the stage when I do some tests to prove that the hash
size is too low/high.
After all you guys explained to me, it is pretty obvious that I will have
bigger problems than the walking of a linked list too deep.
So, I agree, my patch is useless.
Again, sorry for eating your precious time with this!
Thank you very much!
Catalin(ux) M. BOIE
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html