On Thu, 23 May 2013, David Coulson wrote: >> and the problem did not appear to go away. The traffic through the >> director was extremely sluggish, so I failed back to having 'gro off', >> shrug... > Did it get worse, or just no better?
Sorry, I was not very clear with my statement. I meant was that the old bug of very poor / terrible performance still existed when GRO was on. Turning if off leads to reasonable performance that I can live with :) > Are you able to do iptables NAT instead to see if that makes a > difference, Sorry, ignorance is biting me here and I am not sure what you mean. I thought iptables was necessary to make LVS-NAT work in the first place. > or perhaps put a http proxy in the middle? I do have other services in the mix than http, but I could try that. > If nothing else, just as a test. What about going direct to a http > server - Does that have better throughput? Yeah, I can get gigabit transfer rates direct from a real server and via the LVS-NAT for a single file on a single connection. The LVS director seems to be maxing out around 50,000 packets per second based on sar output. Thanks for the help! daryl _______________________________________________ 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
