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 - [email protected] Send requests to [email protected] or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
