Le 11/12/2012 22:00, Thomas Bätzler a écrit : > Hi > > Zhongkang Lao wrote on 05.12.2012 08:41: >> I have already googled this like a hundred of times, but I got nothing. >> I didn't find any page or any article explain this. >> I'm sure someone here can explain this. >> So sorry to bother you guys here. > > I don't have any answers, but I can confirm the problem (and the > workaround) on a box running Debian "Squeeze" with 2.6.32 directing > traffic from a VIP bound to lo via NAT to an active/backup bonding > interface on the backend. With "gro on" for the bonded interfaces to the > backend real servers, throughput was ~64K/s. With "gro off" it was > ~50MB/s. It's not a general networking problem since a direct connection > to the real server via a DNAT port forward was not impacted. > >>From what I gleaned from a cursory look with tcpdump it seems that the > problem is caused by incorrectly calculated tcp checksums. > > Anybody interested in pursuing this further? >
Yes, I can relate. I had the same conclusions, incorrectly calculated TCP checksums leading to packet drops by the next firewall (in my architecture). Also fixed by disabling gro. CentOS 6.2, ipvsadm-1.25-9.el6.x86_64, kernel 2.6.32-220.23.1.el6.x86_64 -- Cheers, Florian Crouzat _______________________________________________ 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
