|
Hello,
no sorry. I assume you've read the sections in the HOWTO on clients on
realservers?
I read a few sections in the howto regarding this, but I didn't feel any of
them were taking into consideration if the realserver was to loop back to a
service running on itself via the director:
realserver1 -> LVS-DR -> realserver1
Could you please send me a link to what you think is the relevent section?
Thanks.
~Rodre
From: Joseph Mack NA3T <jmack@xxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list."
<lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list."
<lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: jkrzyszt@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: SNAT Confusion
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007, Rodre Ghorashi-Zadeh wrote:
Hello,
So if the realserver is dead, it can't ask the 2nd request?
I think the fear is more along the lines of what if the service is dead,
and perhaps being able to perform rolling maintenance. Also the app that I
am trying to get load balanced, Oracle OCS, actually mentions the f5 load
balancers SNAT mode, so I believe it is a pretty deep rooted requirement.
yes a few people are starting to ask about the F5 SNAT mode. We don't have
it unfortunately.
LVS could be pure netfilter, but it would be really slow.
Enough said. I knew there had to be a reason, now I understand why. Out of
curiosity do you think that this still holds true with todays hardware,
gig nics, dual/quad core CPUs, etc?
I expect so. I can't measure the increase in latency caused by LVS over
just straight routing. I haven't done any measurements with netfilter, but
everyone seems to know when it's on. The clock rate for everything
increases at about the same speed - the same technology is being used for
all new hardware - so while the absolute speed is increasing, the ratio of
speeds remains the same. The step that was the bottleneck 10yrs ago is
still the bottleneck today.
In regards to my problem I still can't get the reply packets, once
SNAT-ed, sent to the realserver, and sent back to the director to be
accepted by the director and sent back to the client. I am thinking it
might have some thing to do with some of the the /proc/sys/net/ipv4
params, anyone have any ideas?
no sorry. I assume you've read the sections in the HOWTO on clients on
realservers?
Joe
--
Joseph Mack NA3T EME(B,D), FM05lw North Carolina
jmack (at) wm7d (dot) net - azimuthal equidistant map
generator at http://www.wm7d.net/azproj.shtml
Homepage http://www.austintek.com/ It's GNU/Linux!
_________________________________________________________________
Have Some Fresh Air Fun This March Break
http://local.live.com/?mkt=en-ca/?v=2&cid=A6D6BDB4586E357F!147
|
