Re: question about lvs and 2.3.x, 2.4

To: tcl@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: question about lvs and 2.3.x, 2.4
Cc: Jeremy Hansen <jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Drew Streib <ds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 16:15:14 -0800 (PST)
I can vouch for all sorts of good performance from lvs. I've had single
processor boxes handle thousands of simultaneous connections without
problems, and yes, the 50,000 connections per second number from the VA
cluster is true.

lvs powers,,, and
SourceForge uses a single lvs server to support 22 machines, multiple
types of load balancing, and an average 25Mbit/sec traffic. With
60Mbit/sec of traffic flowing through the director (and more than 1000
concurrent connections), the box was having no problems whatsoever, and in
fact was using very little cpu.

Using DR mode, I've sent request traffic to an director box resulting in
near gigabit traffic from the real servers. (Request traffic was on the
order of 40Mbit.)

I can say without a doubt that lvs toasts F5/BigIP solutions, at least in
our real world implementations. I wouldn't trade a good lvs box for a 
Cisco Local Director either.


Drew Streib <d@xxxxxxxxxxx> 408.542.5725

Sr Developer, Community Liason, SourceForge | <dtype@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
System Administrator, Linux International   | <dtype@xxxxxx>
Information Architect, VA Linux Systems     | <dtype@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Admirer, Occasional Programmer,   | <dtype@xxxxxxxxx>

On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 tcl@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> in response to the whole testing deal, redhat supports lvs.  valinux
> supports lvs.  turbolinux's clustering is based largely around lvs code, i
> believe.  horms' all-in-one webserver farm "ultramonkey" project utilizes
> lvs.  valinux claimed handling 50,000 connections per second with a 16
> machine farm at the linuxworld expo, if i recall correctly.
> i could probably dig up some other old emails to the list regarding good
> performance, but jam on.
> -tcl.
> > I want to use LVS for a load balancer for the obvious reasons and I
> > received two emails from the higher ups, first:
> > 
> > Load Balancing under Linux is still in development or hasn't been tested.
> > We do have 2 Cisco Local Directors (to provide redundancy) in NY that we
> > can ship to Silicon Valley. Those can be used as load balancers. It will
> > take about 4 days to configure the local Director with the latest version
> > and ship them.
> > 
> > I disputed this of course, having used LVS for a while now, I consider it
> > to be one of the more stable projects, plus the fact that I really don't
> > know where he's getting this from.  It hasn't been tested?  Uh, by who, so
> > I was just confused in general by this.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>