LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: Persistance and LVS

To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Persistance and LVS
From: Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:03:55 +0900
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 10:20:20AM +0200, Andrea Cerrito wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 04:40, Horms wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 03:45:53PM +0200, Andrea Cerrito wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 15:28, Joseph Mack wrote:
> > > > Andrea Cerrito wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > > To have 8 million concurrent connections through a director to 
> > > > > > realservers
> > > > > > that only have 64k ports, you'd need 128 realservers?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Does it help to play with /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_conntrack_max?
> > > > > I mean, is it possible to increment over 65535 this value?
> > > > 
> > > > the problem is that the number of ports in ipv4 is a 16bit number and
> > > > part of the spec. I kinda think that maybe ipv6 has more ports but I 
> > > > don't really 
> > > > know.
> > > 
> > > I'm confused.
> > > Reading here 'http://www.wallfire.org/misc/netfilter_conntrack_perf.txt'
> > > I found that tuning ip_conntrack module is possible, and it's possible
> > > to handle even 1million connection.
> > 
> > LVS-Nat ant Netfilter's NAT are not the same thing.
> > The do not use the same code. Although the agument for
> > LVS is simmilar to the one for Nefilter you have below.
> 
> So, modify conntrack kernel parameters have no influence on lvs?

Yes

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