|
Horms wrote:
>
> Hi, I have been setting up a test network to benchmark IPVS,
> the topology is as follows.
>
> node-1 node-6 node-7
> (client) (client) (client)
> | | | client-net
> ---------+---------+----------+------ 192.168.2.0/24
> |
> node-3 (router)
> | server-net
> ------+--------+----------+--- 192.168.1.0/24
> | | |
> node-2 node-4 node-5
> (IPVS) (server) (server)
>
> The 192.168.2.0/24 and 192.168.1.0/24 are gigabit networks. The
> performance is limited to about 185Mbits/s/node as I am using
> ee1000 cards, which have performance issues. This was measured
> using netpipe-2.3. I am looking at getting some better/faster
> cards to this may not happen for a couple of weeks. The good
> thing is that at these bit rates there was no appreciable
> difference in network performance when using IPVS to multiplex,
> as opposed to directly accessing one of the servers.
>
Hi Horms,
I don't know if your node-3 is a linux box with two ee1000 cards or
gigabit switcher/router. If your node-3 is a Linux box, I think that
the above network topology is good for benchmarking LVS/NAT and the
node-3 take the IPVS job. because ee1000 cards on Linux has
performance issues.
For LVS/DR or LVS/TUN, you might change your network topology like
node-1 node-6 node-7
(client) (client) (client)
| | | gigabit network
---------+---------+----------+---------+-- 192.168.1.0/24
| | | |
node-2 node-3 node-4 node-5
(IPVS) (server) (server) (server)
All the clients and servers are in the same network. Then, the maximum
throught 185Mbits/s/node won't affect benchmarking the maximum
throughput of the whole server cluster earlier.
Wensong
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lvs-users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: lvs-users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
