|
I have changed the MTU value for eth0 on the director to 1400. All that does
for me is make more machines (all that I have tested) suffer from the same
problem.
Should the MTU value be changed at different places? I.e. both ends of the
tunnel?
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Nibali [mailto:ratz@xxxxxx]
Sent: 01 December 2003 11:31
To: LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list.
Subject: Re: LVS & UM 1.0.10 RH 9 HTTP POST request greater than ~1000
Hello Horms,
> typically the MTU used is 1500 bytes. But when tunnels come
> into play then this becomes slightly smaller because of
> the overhead for the tunnel. This should not be an issue
> but in practice it offten makes sense to manually set
> the MTU to the smaller value on applicable interfaces.
... or the mtu of the tunnel's routing entity for that matter. This is faster
and less intrusive than adjusting down the whole physical interface's mtu. I
use
it for boxes where I have dozens of VPN tunnels over a physical interface but
also non-tunneled traffic.
Best regards,
Roberto Nibali, ratz
--
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln256%Pln256/snlbx]sb3135071790101768542287578439snlbxq' | dc
_______________________________________________
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
Berkeley Alexander
Temple House, 25-26 High Street, Lewes, East Sussex, BN7 2SD
Tel 01273 477784, Fax 01273 478994
www.baonline.co.uk
PLEASE NOTE:
The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It may not represent the views of Berkeley Alexander. It is intended solely for
the addressees. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you
are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any
action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be
unlawful. Any unauthorised recipient should advise the sender immediately of
the error in transmission.
|
