|
You bottleneck is not CPU or memory. It is the network cards.
If you have heavy outgoing connections, the number of ports
could be masqueraded could be a limiting factor, too.
At 02:33 PM 11/1/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>I too have been looking to benchmark an LVS-NAT setup using the 2.4 kernel
>but I'm not sure what a good benchmark is? What do people suggest for the
>following setup?
>
># | |
># | client |
># |________|
># CIP=eth0 192.168.1.13
># |
># |
># VIP=eth0:0 192.168.1.200/32
># __________
># | |
># | director |
># |__________|
># DIP=eth2:254 10.10.10.200/24
># |
># |
># |
># --------------------------------------------
># | | |
># | | |
># RIP1=eth0 RIP2=eth0 RIP=eth0
># 10.10.10.10 10.10.10.20 10.10.10.30
># ______________ ______________ ________________
># | | | | | |
># | rs1 | | rs2 | | rs3 |
># |______________| |______________| |________________|
>
>Director = 2x 1GHz 1Gig RAM 2 onboard Pro100's and 1 64bit/66MHz
>Pro1000(talks to real server)
>
>Realservers = 3X same config as above but no Pro1000 (could add though)
>
>All running the 2.4-9 linux kernel with that level of LVS code. The network
>is fully switched 100/1000.
>
>Any suggestions would be helpful. Definitely looking to benchmark web or
>streaming type content.
>
>--Ben Odom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Mueller [mailto:pmueller@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 1:08 PM
>To: 'lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
>Subject: RE: NAT Performance
>
>|I'm considering LVS as a replacement to Cisco LocalDirectors to front
>|several SMTP server farms. Due to customer-end constraints we
>|need to do
>|this via NAT. Target throughput is up to 40 Mbps. Is this
>|realistic? LVS
>|hardware is likely to be twin 1GHz Pentiums.
>|
>
>40mbps sounds all right on dual-1ghz box, assuming you use later 2.4 kernel
>on your director. Be very stingy on your NICs.. for example eepro100's seem
>to historically be 'uncertain' with high bandwidth..
>
>I haven't seen a "gauranteed" figure with newer 2.4 kernels. However,
>lurking on the mailing list for a year or so now has led me to believe that
>the key LVS people now believe NAT (with 2.4 kernel) to perform similar to
>DR. LVS-DR easily exceeds 40mbs, assuming you have decent hardware.
>
>some probably outdated performance evaluations:
>http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/Joseph.Mack/performance/single_realserver_
>performance.html
>and
>http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/Documents.html#manuals (look under
>performance)
>
>===
>
>bottom line : if I were you, I would have a basic assumption that it will
>perform and proceed directly to your testing of LVS-NAT and see if it does.
>It would only take 2-3 days and could possibly save you lots of $.
>
>Peter
>
>_______________________________________________
>LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
>
>_______________________________________________
>LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
|
