Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[lvs\-users\]\s+Reasonable$\?$\s+Performance\s+of\s+LVS\-NAT\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[lvs\-users\]\s+Reasonable$\?$\s+Performance\s+of\s+LVS\-NAT\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [lvs-users] Reasonable(?) Performance of LVS-NAT (score: 1): Author: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:18:56 +0900; Bugzilla says "Upstream commit 8f1b03a4c18e8f3f0801447b62330faa8ed3bb37 fixes this.". But perhaps that is only a portion of the fix? _______________________________________________ Please read the do; /html/lvs-users/2013-07/msg00018.html (10,484 bytes)
2. Re: [lvs-users] Reasonable(?) Performance of LVS-NAT (score: 1): Author: daryl herzmann <akrherz@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 07:52:38 -0500 (CDT); Hi, Hi, To follow up on this, I opened a Red Hat bugzilla ticket (#973190, sorry it's private) regarding the problems I was seeing with GRO and LVS NAT. After some debugging, they found the issue and; /html/lvs-users/2013-07/msg00016.html (9,852 bytes)
3. Re: [lvs-users] Reasonable(?) Performance of LVS-NAT (score: 1): Author: Thomas Bätzler <t.baetzler@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 12:36:04 +0000; Hi, Did they mention if this patch will be propagated upstream? It's affecting at least the Debian 6 2.6.32 kernel, too. TIA, Thomas _______________________________________________ Please read the do; /html/lvs-users/2013-07/msg00015.html (9,809 bytes)
4. Re: [lvs-users] Reasonable(?) Performance of LVS-NAT (score: 1): Author: daryl herzmann <akrherz@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 07:14:51 -0500 (CDT); To follow up on this, I opened a Red Hat bugzilla ticket (#973190, sorry it's private) regarding the problems I was seeing with GRO and LVS NAT. After some debugging, they found the issue and the fix; /html/lvs-users/2013-07/msg00014.html (10,010 bytes)
5. Re: [lvs-users] Reasonable(?) Performance of LVS-NAT (score: 1): Author: daryl herzmann <akrherz@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 06:14:49 -0500 (CDT); Unfortunately, it would be difficult for me to test that as I need SNAT working for my various applications to keep working. I think my next step will be to try a different machine with a current Xeo; /html/lvs-users/2013-05/msg00048.html (10,935 bytes)
6. Re: [lvs-users] Reasonable(?) Performance of LVS-NAT (score: 1): Author: Graeme Fowler <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 08:57:34 +0100; Have you tried running a test with no iptables rules at all? Even NOTRACK has to parse the packet headers before handing it to IPVS, so there's obviously a performance hit there. Graeme [sent from mo; /html/lvs-users/2013-05/msg00047.html (14,875 bytes)
7. Re: [lvs-users] Reasonable(?) Performance of LVS-NAT (score: 1): Author: daryl herzmann <akrherz@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 08:14:58 -0500 (CDT); Thanks for your help. Here's my current iptables setup, I thought I had enabled NOTRACK for http and https traffic to prevent this. 1.1.1.1 is my fake public IP for this email and 192.168.0.0 is the; /html/lvs-users/2013-05/msg00046.html (12,917 bytes)
8. Re: [lvs-users] Reasonable(?) Performance of LVS-NAT (score: 1): Author: Graeme Fowler <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 09:27:45 +0100; No, it isn't. If you have rules in place and something making use of the conntrack modules (matching ESTABLISHED/RELATED for example) then you *could* - I'm not saying *will :) - see performance prob; /html/lvs-users/2013-05/msg00045.html (10,459 bytes)
9. Re: [lvs-users] Reasonable(?) Performance of LVS-NAT (score: 1): Author: daryl herzmann <akrherz@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 15:28:29 -0500 (CDT); 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 ca; /html/lvs-users/2013-05/msg00044.html (11,038 bytes)
10. Re: [lvs-users] Reasonable(?) Performance of LVS-NAT (score: 1): Author: David Coulson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 15:09:52 -0400; Yep, that's it. Should be in the kernel you are running. Did it get worse, or just no better? Are you able to do iptables NAT instead to see if that makes a difference, or perhaps put a http proxy in; /html/lvs-users/2013-05/msg00043.html (10,904 bytes)
11. Re: [lvs-users] Reasonable(?) Performance of LVS-NAT (score: 1): Author: Malcolm Turnbull <malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 19:23:19 +0100; I seem to recall a nasty bug in the older broadcom driver that ignores the gro=off setting! I believe the latest driver should fix it. -- Regards, Malcolm Turnbull. Loadbalancer.org Ltd. Phone: +44 (; /html/lvs-users/2013-05/msg00042.html (12,208 bytes)
12. Re: [lvs-users] Reasonable(?) Performance of LVS-NAT (score: 1): Author: daryl herzmann <akrherz@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 11:12:31 -0500 (CDT); Thanks, it appears this is the relevant bug? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854066 I did a test of this: Features for eth1: rx-checksumming: on tx-checksumming: on scatter-gather: on tcp; /html/lvs-users/2013-05/msg00041.html (10,579 bytes)
13. Re: [lvs-users] Reasonable(?) Performance of LVS-NAT (score: 1): Author: "Horst Venzke-Fa Remsnet Ltd" <support@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 18:01:43 +0200 (CEST); Hello Daryl, Simply add second LVS cluster , split the traffik via dns RR . Hope this helps. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Horst Venzke ; PGP NET : 1024G/082F2E6D ; http://www.remsnet.de; /html/lvs-users/2013-05/msg00040.html (12,244 bytes)
14. Re: [lvs-users] Reasonable(?) Performance of LVS-NAT (score: 1): Author: David Coulson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 11:19:15 -0400; I was told by RedHat the GRO issue is fixed in RHEL6.4 - Not had chance to test it yet. David _______________________________________________ Please read the documentation before posting - it's avail; /html/lvs-users/2013-05/msg00039.html (9,130 bytes)
15. [lvs-users] Reasonable(?) Performance of LVS-NAT (score: 1): Author: daryl herzmann <akrherz@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 10:04:21 -0500 (CDT); Greetings, I have a LVS-NAT web cluster that seems to be nicely chugging along. My LVS director has the following specs: - Dell OptiPlex 745 - Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 3.40GHz - 4 GB Memory - BCM575; /html/lvs-users/2013-05/msg00038.html (10,315 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]