Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[lvs\-users\]\s+LVS\s+FULLANT\s+perf\s+test\s+result\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[lvs\-users\]\s+LVS\s+FULLANT\s+perf\s+test\s+result\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [lvs-users] LVS FULLANT perf test result (score: 1): Author: emilio.campos.martin@xxxxxxxxx (Emilio Campos); Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 20:28:53 +0200; F5 as another vendors make tuning in TCP stack, if you have some idea to compare lvs vs f5 I think it will not be very conclusively. In case you want to compare with F5, F5 *fastL4 *Profile would be; /html/lvs-users/2016-04/msg00000.html (12,536 bytes)
2. Re: [lvs-users] LVS FULLANT perf test result (score: 1): Author: Jamie Dahl <jamied@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:35:49 -0700; and to also note. the F5 use asics to accelerate a lot of L7 functionality and ddos offload; cots cannot really compete with that. I am a fan of putting the heavy lifting intelligence on a proxy tier; /html/lvs-users/2016-03/msg00005.html (12,201 bytes)
3. Re: [lvs-users] LVS FULLANT perf test result (score: 1): Author: Malcolm Turnbull <malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 08:07:54 +0000; As no one else has replied I thought I would. LVS fullNAT is not widely used but is likely to perform very well as it is simple layer 4 routing. Most people use LVS for layer 4 dr/masq mode and HAPro; /html/lvs-users/2016-03/msg00002.html (10,155 bytes)
4. [lvs-users] LVS FULLANT perf test result (score: 1): Author: wei wang <lnykww@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 20:10:29 +0800; Hi. Is there any performance test result report for lvs fullnat? I want to compare it with F5 hardware load balancer,so if there are some report, please send to me. thanks. __________________________; /html/lvs-users/2016-03/msg00001.html (8,260 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]