|
Can you define what is a "fast Intel box", on your point of view ?
PIII 500, 64MB, IDE disks, 100Mbps NIC ?
What is the bottleneck in such a config : CPU, memory, type of NIC ?
Nicolas Huillard
-----Message d'origine-----
De: Drew Streib [SMTP:ds@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Date: vendredi 12 mai 2000 20:30
À: Cono D'Elia; lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Objet: Re: lvs bottlekneck
On Sat, May 13, 2000 at 02:16:02PM -0700, Cono D'Elia wrote:
> Hello,
>
> What do you do when you reach the point where a single linux load balancer
> box becomes the bottlekneck? What about configuring the DNS entry for the www
> site to have multiple ips ( one for each linux load balancer box) and to be
> round robin... ie...
I want to see the application in which a fast Intel based LVS director becomes
the bottleneck.
I'll be performing "official" benchmarks on this in the near future, and
from what I'm seeing now, I don't expect anything less than 200-300Mbit
minimum bandwidth using NAT modes for a fast Intel box. Direct Routing would
be even faster.
There are < 10 sites in the world which sustain this much bandwidth.
Having a second box for failover is a good idea... but I'd question
a suspected lvs bottleneck.
Has anyone on this list actually benchmarked under real conditions
and found the lvs director was actually slowing traffic?
-drew
--
-------
Drew Streib <d@xxxxxxxxxxx> 408.542.5725
Tech Marketing/Benchmarking, VA Linux Systems | <dtype@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sr Developer, Community Liason, SourceForge | <dtype@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
System Administrator, Linux International | <dtype@xxxxxx>
Admirer, Occasional Programmer, Linux.com | <dtype@xxxxxxxxx>
|
