|
Hello,
On Sat, 13 May 2000, Dan wrote:
> Well, rather than dragging this down into a pedantic discussion of details,
> let me restate my point:
>
> If you are running a proxy server with heavy load, or large number of users,
> just increasing the LVS tables may not be enough. You may have to increase
> the size of actual kernel masquerading tables or suffer severe performance
> hits. That was the reason I posted this to start with because, as the
> subject line states, it was a discussion of the lvs becoming a bottleneck.
> There was a statement that the lvs couldn't be the bottleneck, to which I
> disagreed, because in my particular situation, the LVS *was* the bottleneck.
> That only changed after modifying kernel source code & recompiling.
But you change the masquerading, not the LVS parameters.
I think, you don't see the difference. LVS balances the proxy
traffic and the masquerading handles the ftp/http traffic.
Of course, the masquerading is not tuned for high-end servers.
Anyway, I agree. Anyone can have opinion.
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <uli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
|
