|
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 05:54:57AM +0200, Michael Schwartzkopff wrote:
> On Saturday 30 October 2010 05:03:33 Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 03:59:17PM +0200, Michael Schwartzkopff wrote:
> > > On Thursday 28 October 2010 13:42:47 Simon Horman wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 08:24:36AM +0200, Michael Schwartzkopff wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > is it possible to use direct routing with clients, real server and
> > > > > director in the same LAN?
> > > >
> > > > Yes. Actually, that is how I do most of my testing.
> > >
> > > Do you have any idea why the director might limit the performance of our
> > > system? Without LB I get 100 connections/s to the real IP address of a
> > > real server. When I address the virtual IP of the director I get a
> > > performance drop to 1 connection/s.
> > >
> > > tcpdump shows that sometimes I have no traffic at all on the line to 0.2
> > > sec.
> > >
> > > Any ideas? Thanks.
> >
> > If you are running 2.6.36 then this may relate to a performance
> > regression related to the introduction of double NAT.
> >
> > But regardless, that is a pretty startling result that
> > I don't have a decent explanation for.
>
> No. have some older version on the kernel and do not use NAT at all.
>
> The only explanation we found at the moment is that something with
> bonding did not work properly.
Would it be possible for you to try this with a newer kernel
and if pain persists describe your setup in a little more detail?
_______________________________________________
Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
|
