|
As no one else has replied I thought I would.
LVS fullNAT is not widely used but is likely to perform very well as it is
simple layer 4 routing.
Most people use LVS for layer 4 dr/masq mode and HAProxy for anything that
needs Layer 7 i.e. a proxy (fullnat).
F5 is the top of the range commercial product so neither LVS or HAProxy are
anything like it. However they can give 95% of the performance/features
when configured correctly.
Loadbalancer.org, Kemp & Barracuda Networks all use LVS for layer 4 load
balancing in their commercial products.
You are much better off looking at what your requirements are first NOT
comparing to a random commercial product.
On 23 March 2016 at 12:10, wei wang <lnykww@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi.
> Is there any performance test result report for lvs fullnat? I want
> to compare it with F5 hardware load balancer,so if there are some
> report, please send to me. thanks.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
--
Regards,
Malcolm Turnbull.
Loadbalancer.org Ltd.
Phone: +44 (0)330 380 1064
http://www.loadbalancer.org/
_______________________________________________
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
|
