|
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Horms wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 08:16:22AM -0700, Rob Leasure wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I was wondering if there are any known limitations for LVS? In
> > particular, I was wondering about the maximum number of servers I
> > can have behind the LVS without any risk of failure.
>
>
> LVS does not set artificial limits on the number of servers that you can
> have. The real limitations are the number of packets you can get through
> the box, the ammount of memory you have to store connection information and
> in the case of LVS-NAT the number of ports available for masquerading.
> These limitations effect the number of concurrent connections you can
> handle and your maximum through-put. This indirectly effects how many
> servers you can have.
And, of course, the CPU speed.
Talking of the risk of failure, LVS is more stable than a foundry box (and
more performant), the only possible problem being the machine it runs on
(but that's generally not a big concern).
|
