|
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Wensong Zhang wrote:
> > OK, I see. *That's* why I haven't seen a reply. There aren't any. (As long
> > as you remember to put the stuff in the kernel :-)))
>
> Look at http://www.linuxvirtual.org/VS-IPTunneling.html for its
> working principle and instructions.
Read & Printed that out before I started.
> If your squid servers run on kernel 2.2.xx, apply one of the
> patch posted in the mailing list to make the tunnel device not
> do ARP response.
Hmm... I must've missed that comment - I'll have a dig around before I
start shifting load on next week. (Ramping up slowly as you'd imagine)
BTW, what's the largest load anyone out there on the list has put on these
sorts of systems? We're looking to have a sustained level of traffic at
around 50-70Mbit/s (*) between all the servers - spread over a couple of
geographic locations for about 10-15 hours per day shortly, and hence the
interest in this aspect.
(*) Or in terms of user requests 30 Million per day + 20-25 Million per
day generated by our servers - to origin servers and their ilk.
Also has anyone tried this using 2 or more masters - each master with it's
own IP? (*) From what I can see theoretically all you should have to do is
have one master on IP X, tunneled to clients who recieve stuff via tunl0,
and another master on IP Y, tunneled to clients on tunl1 - except when I
just tried doing that I can't get the kernel to accept the concept of a
tunl1... Is this a limitation of the IPIP module ???
(*) This way we give the clients multiple parents in the evnt of
catastrophic failure, that can and does happen.
Michael.
--
National & Local Web Cache Support R: G117
Manchester Computing T: 0161 275 7195
University of Manchester F: 0161 275 6040
Manchester UK M13 9PL M: Michael.Sparks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
