|
Hi,
Am 30.10.2010 um 09:35 schrieb Michael Schwartzkopff:
> On Saturday 30 October 2010 07:10:17 Simon Horman wrote:
>> 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?
>
> We have 2.6.34.
> Simple setup. Everything in the same LAN. direct routing. All hosts with
> bonding interfaces connected to two switches.
And you're quit sure that every host is "active" on the same switch ?
I mean i guess you're aware of a non-existing broadcast domain - across those
switches
and that in mind - perhaps problems with the layer2 rewriting ... the director
does ?
i'd suggest testing first without bonding with only one switch - and then after
all
configure the bonding in a failover scenario - i don't know about your switches
- but
i'm guessing you're not using these 10k+ € pieces, that can do LACP over
several switches ..
regards,
Malte
>
> Greetings,
>
> --
> Dr. Michael Schwartzkopff
> Guardinistr. 63
> 81375 München
>
> Tel: (0163) 172 50 98
> _______________________________________________
> 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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
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
|
