LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

RE: Question About SMP

To: "'LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list.'" <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'dusten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <dusten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Question About SMP
From: Peter Mueller <pmueller@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 14:57:29 -0700
Hello Dusten,

> When doing more traffic the load on cpu0 increases and 
> nothing is happing on
> cpu1. 
> 
> My question is why am I not seeing this processor usage 
> distributed over
> both processors.  I know that on a Sun box the network card 
> is stuck to a
> single processor and will not use the other processors.  

Uhm... what version of LVS are you using?

I remember quite a few discussions indicating SMP was not `efficient` with
LVS due to spinlocks & such.  The end result was that it was better to
compile without SMP.  I'm not sure why you aren't seeing utilization on both
CPUs.

> Oh and just for those of you what want to know here is my 
> ipvsadm output.
> 
> TCP  XXX.XXX.XXX.X:http wrr
>   -> .com:http    Route   35     43         2712      
>   -> .com:http    Route   57     46         4462      
>   -> .com:http    Route   4      5          329       
>   -> .com:http    Route   49     39         3892      
>   -> .com:http    Route   34     29         2685      
>   -> .com:http    Route   32     25         2501      
>   -> .com:http    Route   21     21         1661      
>   -> .com:http    Route   19     26         1492      
>   -> .com:http    Route   25     20         1977      
>   -> .com:http    Route   19     17         1524      
>   -> .com:http    Route   35     40         2746      
>   -> .com:http    Route   57     48         4511      
>   -> .com:http    Route   20     16         1570      
>   -> .com:http    Route   22     25         1775      
>   -> .com:http    Route   11     6          884       
>   -> .com:http    Route   116    87         9116      
>   -> .com:http    Route   74     69         5883      
>   -> .com:http    Route   162    164        12736     
>   -> .com:http    Route   52     45         4027      
>   -> .com:http    Route   114    88         9053      
>   -> .com:http    Route   119    117        9394      
>   -> .com:http    Route   115    104        9063      
>   -> .com:http    Route   22     22         1754      
>   -> .com:http    Route   35     42         2717      
>   -> .com:http    Route   60     50         4685      
>   -> .com:http    Route   80     62         6255      
>   -> .com:http    Route   86     61         6686      
>   -> .com:http    Route   29     28         2266      
>   -> .com:http    Route   31     36         2416      
>   -> .com:http    Route   36     33         2837      
>   -> .com:http    Route   48     55         3734      
>   -> .com:http    Route   84     74         6570      
>   -> .com:http    Route   35     52         2716      
>   -> .com:http    Route   67     59         5234      
>   -> .com:http    Route   7      3          554       
>   -> .com:http    Route   44     49         3395      
>   -> .com:http    Route   29     25         2247      
>   -> .com:http    Route   1      0          95        
>   -> .com:http    Route   1      0          88        
>   -> .com:http    Route   44     36         3436      
>   -> .com:http    Route   64     75         5004      
>   -> .com:http    Route   105    88         8156      
>   -> .com:http    Route   32     36         2483      
>   -> .com:http    Route   22     20         1720      
>   -> .com:http    Route   95     78         7403      
>   -> .com:http    Route   22     13         1774      
>   -> .com:http    Route   70     70         5449      
>   -> .com:http    Route   68     48         5235      

That's a sexy ipvsadm output you have there.  Now all you need is some
worschesteir (spelling!) sauce.

Hope that helps,

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