LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

RE: [LVS - NAT] alternatives

To: "'lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [LVS - NAT] alternatives
From: Radu-Adrian Feurdean <raf@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 19:22:10 +0200 (CEST)
On Sun, 9 Sep 2001, Peter Mueller wrote:

> All of the major commercial load balancers (Radware WSD, F5 BigIP,
> Alteon 180
> series and Cisco LocalDirector) are NAT boxes. They work just fine. They
> also
> all have optional gigabit interfaces. I worked at a company that was
> handling
> 30mil pages/day (~4 megabytes/sec average outbound traffic) on 10 Sun
> 220Rs
> behind Alteons. NAT was definately -not- an issue.


LVS-NAT, Min 30Mbps, Max 78 Mbps output with P3@1000 Mhz quad tulip-based
FastEthernet card. Average packet size = 800 bytes. Works for three months
(we could reach 150 Mbps with SMP machine/kernel and bonding driver)

Same setup but for a smaller cluster (max 40Mbps, min 12 Mbps) works for 6
months.

Balanced traffic: HTTP (85%) and FTP (15%)

The only problem are the real servers, that have to grow in number :)

 Radu-Adrian Feurdean
mailto: raf @ chez.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>