|
Hi,
> I understand that system latency is a critical
> parameter for LVS. So, a fast network interface card
> (NIC) might be an advantage for the balancer box.
Depending on what you do, LVS-DR or LVS-NAT, have a look at
Joe's stress tests hosted on the LVs-website. At a certain
point I could imagine that also the PCI-bus will be a limiting
factor. At least when you're building a load balancer with
more then 4 NIC's that tries to handle 60Mbit/s requests on
each NIC (although you need quite a fat backbone)
> What NICs do you reccomend for using in a LVS
> balancer, on Intel architecture?
Mhh, if you refer to the CPU with Intel architecture, Horms
already gave you a reasonable answer, however if you refer to
the mainboard I might just add that eepro100 cards perform
very good with Intel Boards, especially the L440GX+ (monsterboards)
But as experience shows it's more the drivers status that's
limiting. The standard cards (like 3com, DEC and eepro100) all
have similar architecture and builtin intelligence, however
the driver doesn't always take advantage of their capabilities
therefore you might see higher troughput on test with f.e DEC
cards on NT then on Linux because the NT driver does take advantage
of the hardware TCP sanity checks and stuff like that and under
Linux not because of the compatibility with the rest of the TCP/
IP stack implementation. See, we're talking about some 1-2Mbits/s
of requests of difference and if you really would experience a
bottleneck with some of the cards Horms mentioned, I'll gladly
help you speeding them up by tweaking some bits ;)
> Is there an FAQ for LVS? I think this question is a
> typical FAQ entry...
I was going to suggest it to Joe.
regards,
Roberto Nibali, ratz
--
mailto: `echo NrOatSz@xxxxxxxxx | sed 's/[NOSPAM]//g'`
|
