|
On Mon, 15 May 2000, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>
> Yes. This is only one real example. With keep alive
> ON, most of the connections can be closed first from the
> client.
But it does explain the reduced ratio you see ;->
> > 2.3 networking scales linearly with number of processors. Example typical
> > routing max capacities are around 30-40K packets/sec; same in 2.3 but if
> > you add another procesor, you end somewhere in the 60-70Kpps with 2.3 (2.2
> > doesnt change).
>
> You forgot to describe the hardware :)
Sorry, this was the same motherboard with one processor and then two
processors so the numbers are relative; a really shitty motherboard known
as the ABIT6 which can take upto 2 400Mhz (?)celeron processors.
64MB of RAM.
> > your connection setup because it includes a little more overhead than
> > typical routing should get less performance.
>
> Right. With faster enough CPU this is only latency,
> not less performance! If we start to drop packets this is
> bad.
I would think it would be a little more complicated than that.
Depends on a lot of other tunings (simple example: if you use DMAing NICs,
how big are those receive Ring/lists). Latency would probably hover around
the PCI latency then.
> Lets see his results :)
I hope he's going to do it.
>
> Well, I didn't performed such tests. That doesn't
> mean that there are no such tests. Please, I'm not the only
> LVS user :)
>
I thought you were one of the developers (in which case this should
concern you).
> I don't know your needs, really! If this hardware
> is faster and cheaper and you think that is enough just save
> your money and don't buy PC :) The people have different
> needs. One needs PIII 2GB LVS box another can live with
> 128MB box :) I can't give you the universal solution.
>
> The only thing I can do is to explain the details.
> The users always have questions about the LVS internals. I
> can't tell you "You must use LVS - It is free". There are
> so many things that must be considered. May be the simpler
> answer is "Buy hardware for load balancing. It has good TCP
> stack and it is without bugs and ...". May be this
> hardware is better, may be the support is better. Why not!
> Why the only load balancing solution must be LVS?
I am just a curious observer as far as LVS is concerned. I have absolutely
no need for it (maybe at some later point, since i know exists).
I am not asking you to justify why LVS exists or why people should use
LVS; i am just making a statement that load balancing h/ware is becoming
commodity. If the trend continues, you should be able to buy a black box
worth $200 which will have the same features as LVS does; perhaps i am
exagerating a bit, but if this is the case, why should someone continue to
use LVS? I was hoping you will enlighten me in some way instead you become
defensive and give me a marketing pitch.
Maybe someone else has an answer.
cheers,
jamal
|
