LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: lvs bottlekneck

To: "Cono D'Elia" <conod@xxxxxxxx>, lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: lvs bottlekneck
From: Drew Streib <ds@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 11:30:07 -0700
On Sat, May 13, 2000 at 02:16:02PM -0700, Cono D'Elia wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> What do you do when you reach the point where a single linux load balancer 
> box becomes the bottlekneck? What about configuring the DNS entry for the www 
> site to have multiple ips ( one for each linux load balancer box) and to be 
> round robin... ie...

I want to see the application in which a fast Intel based LVS director becomes
the bottleneck.

I'll be performing "official" benchmarks on this in the near future, and
from what I'm seeing now, I don't expect anything less than 200-300Mbit
minimum bandwidth using NAT modes for a fast Intel box. Direct Routing would
be even faster.

There are < 10 sites in the world which sustain this much bandwidth.

Having a second box for failover is a good idea... but I'd question 
a suspected lvs bottleneck.

Has anyone on this list actually benchmarked under real conditions
and found the lvs director was actually slowing traffic?

-drew

-- 
-------
Drew Streib <d@xxxxxxxxxxx> 408.542.5725

Tech Marketing/Benchmarking, VA Linux Systems     | <dtype@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sr Developer, Community Liason, SourceForge       | <dtype@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
System Administrator, Linux International         | <dtype@xxxxxx>
Admirer, Occasional Programmer, Linux.com         | <dtype@xxxxxxxxx>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>