|
At 15:07 98-11-18 +1100, Robert Thomas wrote:
>klynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> I've been doing some thinking and was wondering if anyone has come up with
>> a way to load balance the load balancers. So you could have 2 or 3 of the
>> load balancers(virtual server enabled) distributed to handle the load for
>> high amounts of bandwidth.
>
>Heh. I've been playing with this myself, doing some performance testing. I
>managed to totally flood a 100mb full duplex lan connection and the
>redirecting box was only using about 30% of it's CPU (Single Pentium Pro
>200/512k).
>
>I bottle-necked at the machines actually -accepting- connections. I think I
>ran out of machines I could throw at it 8)
>
>So, basically, your bottlenecks will be elsewhere 8-)
>
The virtual server will be bottleneck when it is received a very large of
traffics.
In my estimation, the delay of rewriting of a TCP packet is around 60ns (in
my virtual server box with Pentium processor), supposing the average length
of TCP packets is 536Bytes, and the max throughout of my virtual server box
is 8MBytes/s (=536Bytes/60ns), or 71.46Mbps. Note the box has two 100M
full-duplex ethernet card, there won't be a bottleneck.
Wensong
|
