Re: HTTPS LB and x-forwarded-for

> Op 8 november 2017 om 14:59 schreef Pierre-Luc Dion : > > > Same challenge here too! > > Let's look at improving Load-balancing offering from cloudstack, I guest we > should do a feature spec draft soon.., from my perspective, doing SSL > offload on the VR could be problematic if the VR spec

RE: HTTPS LB and x-forwarded-for

Playing devils advocate, Is this really CloudStack's job? If an end-user wants a really high performance load-balancer, shouldn't they use a virtualised NetScaler/F5/KEMP.. whatever. I definitely would like to see us enable the passthrough of more host processor features to guests though.

RE: HTTPS LB and x-forwarded-for

I'm assuming we would have the standard openssl version with Intel TLS offload though, right? RHEL ships their FIPS compliant version that strips all the acceleration out. The cpu instruction sets should be passed through from the host, so hopefully that will make a massive difference to decrypt

Re: HTTPS LB and x-forwarded-for

Same challenge here too! Let's look at improving Load-balancing offering from cloudstack, I guest we should do a feature spec draft soon.., from my perspective, doing SSL offload on the VR could be problematic if the VR spec if too small, and the default spec of the VR being 1vcpu@256MB, consider

Re: Strange size of template from snapshot on XenServer

Rafael, In ACS 4.5.2 you are facing issue due to XenServer version (was only working on xenserver 6.2 with some patches) which got fixed in 4.6 with commit 2c4ea503f92bcf9c611f409d5cdecb42b0115b69. Now with code clean up in commit “8a3fd10” it’s broken. During storage refactoring changes in comm