|
On Thu, 23 May 2013, David Coulson wrote:
>> and the problem did not appear to go away. The traffic through the
>> director was extremely sluggish, so I failed back to having 'gro off',
>> shrug...
> Did it get worse, or just no better?
Sorry, I was not very clear with my statement. I meant was that the old
bug of very poor / terrible performance still existed when GRO was on.
Turning if off leads to reasonable performance that I can live with :)
> Are you able to do iptables NAT instead to see if that makes a
> difference,
Sorry, ignorance is biting me here and I am not sure what you mean. I
thought iptables was necessary to make LVS-NAT work in the first place.
> or perhaps put a http proxy in the middle?
I do have other services in the mix than http, but I could try that.
> If nothing else, just as a test. What about going direct to a http
> server - Does that have better throughput?
Yeah, I can get gigabit transfer rates direct from a real server and
via the LVS-NAT for a single file on a single connection.
The LVS director seems to be maxing out around 50,000 packets per second
based on sar output.
Thanks for the help!
daryl
_______________________________________________
Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
|
