Does the internal network need a gateway at all?

We run a very similar set-up, HAProxy listening on a public network, and
forwarding TCP connections to servers on an internal network. Because all
the servers are on the same 10/8 subnet, no default gateway is needed.

Sincerely,

jw


Jon Watte, IMVU.com
We're looking for awesome people! http://www.imvu.com/jobs/



On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:41 AM, James Bardin <jbar...@bu.edu> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> This isn't necessarily an haproxy question, but I'm having trouble
> finding a good resource, so I'm hoping some of the other experienced
> people on this list may be able to help.
>
> Setup:
> I have a load balancer configuration that needs to me multi-homed
> across a private and public network. Both networks have strict reverse
> path checking, so packets must be routed out their corresponding
> interface, instead of a single default (each interface essentially has
> it's own default gateway).
>
> The public net is eth0, so it gets the real default gateway. The
> routing rules take any private-net packets, and send them out the
> correct interface, to the private-net gateway.
>
> ####
> ip route add default via 10.0.0.1 dev eth1 table 10
> ip rule add from 10.0.0.0/8 table 10
> ####
>
> Result:
> What I've noticed is that any traffic handled by this one routing
> decision drops the overall throughput to about 30% (it also seems adds
> about .5ms to the rtt). Haproxy can handle about 1.5Gb/s of tcp
> traffic on the public network, but only about 500Mb/s through the
> private (there's an even greater skew when I remove haproxy, because
> my link is close to 3Gb/s). Adding another cpu, and using interrupt
> coalescing reduced the system cpu time, and brought down the
> context-switches, but didn't increase performance at all.
>
> Any other tuning options I might try? I'm running the latest RHEL5
> kernel at the moment (I haven't tried bringing up new machines with a
> newer kernel yet)
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> James Bardin <jbar...@bu.edu>
> Systems Engineer
> Boston University IS&T
>
>

Reply via email to