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