|
Hi,
Arnaud Pignard wrote:
>
> At 23:25 18/07/2001 +0200, you wrote:
> >Hi Suresh,
> >
> >>It seems to me that the real benefit of the Cisco is wire-speed
> >>NAT.
hmm but where to go with the traffic? on an NAT setup you can only have
one default gw,
with DR the gateway´s/firewall´s are selected by the realservers.
> >
> >Considering the wire-speed, for a standard use (10-20 realservers) it is
> >not really needed if you are using a limited Internet bandwidth (2-5
> >MBits/s). I agree that ASICs works faster but in most case it is not
> >needed. For example a commercial person (from Alteon) told me : "yes...
> >blablabla, our hardware solution is better because NAT is done directly
> >into silicium..." so I answer him, : "whoooo :) but our corporate
> >Internet Bandwidth is around 4 MBits/s so gigabit interface just to
> >loadbalance a server pool is really not needed..." So in conclusion IMHO
> >wire-speed is much more a commercial argument than technical, sometime it
> >is really need for big ISP/ASP architecture, but most of the time this is
> >only a luxe.
OK, for 4 MBit thats not the Problem.
>
> 10-20 realservers is not 2-5 Mbits except on luxe configuration
>
> one of my customers use 24 servers with 50 Mbps and 20% cpu usage :)
>
> How much bandwidth is LVS in production area can manage ?
I´ve never tried NAT on bigger clusters, but with DR we had >120 Mbit
webtraffic without any problems (one LB one failover).
We splitt the traffic over 4 Firewalls and if one FW is overloaded we
change
the default gw on some realservers to one of the others.
bye,
Chris
>
> Regards,
>
> Arnaud Pignard (apignard@xxxxxxxxxxx)
> Frontier Online - Opérateur Internet
> http://www.frontier.fr
>
> _______________________________________________
> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
|
