I'm curious what others are doing to achieve high connection rates
-say 10Kconnections/ second.
We're serving objects averaging around 100KB, so 10K/sec is a fully
utilized 1G ethernet card. I'd like to safely hit 7-800 Mb/sec, but
interrupts are just eating the machine alive.
B
Hi David,
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 03:58:09PM -0800, David Birdsong wrote:
> I'm curious what others are doing to achieve high connection rates
> -say 10Kconnections/ second.
>
> We're serving objects averaging around 100KB, so 10K/sec is a fully
> utilized 1G ether
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 03:58:09PM -0800, David Birdsong wrote:
>> I'm curious what others are doing to achieve high connection rates
>> -say 10Kconnections/ second.
>>
>> We're ser
Hi David,
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 11:41:20AM -0800, David Birdsong wrote:
> we serve media. i double checked the average size simply by reading
> content length values and averaging them for every 100 and 1000
> requests over a 5 minute period.
>
> yep, 85-95kB is what we serve mostlyall ima
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 11:41:20AM -0800, David Birdsong wrote:
>> we serve media. i double checked the average size simply by reading
>> content length values and averaging them for every 100 and 1000
>> requests over a 5 min
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 01:21:07PM -0800, David Birdsong wrote:
> > Do you use TCP splicing ? You need a recent kernel (> 2.6.27.X, with
> > X at least up to date with your distro). Then build haproxy with
> > USE_LINUX_SPLICE=1.
>
> i just tried this and something is all wrong. i had to disable
Hi
> > it's statically in the kernel, i haven't gottten around to recompiling
> > the kernel yet to compile it out.
> >
> > i am using the NOTRACK module to bypass all traffic around conntrack though.
>
> What a shame :-(
> Unless I'm mistaken, that means that a connection is created for each
> i
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 01:42:53AM +0100, XANi wrote:
> Hi
>
> > > it's statically in the kernel, i haven't gottten around to recompiling
> > > the kernel yet to compile it out.
> > >
> > > i am using the NOTRACK module to bypass all traffic around conntrack
> > > though.
> >
> > What a shame :-
Sorry for the radio silence. I took some time off to go skiing.
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 01:21:07PM -0800, David Birdsong wrote:
>> > Do you use TCP splicing ? You need a recent kernel (> 2.6.27.X, with
>> > X at least up to date with your d
Hi David,
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 05:52:24PM -0800, David Birdsong wrote:
> Sorry for the radio silence. I took some time off to go skiing.
no prob.
> but then i just straced haproxy while traffic was plummetting, i
> should have done this a long time ago:
> splice(0x14, 0, 0xf, 0, 0xff
We have over 90K concurrent TCP persistent connections on our single haproxy
instance facing mobile clients on the Internet. Our normal conn rate for 100K
is around
200/sec which I don't have a clue if it is a good one or not for public
internet mobile
clients with keepalive 3-5mins.
Our sta
Hello,
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:53:21AM +0430, Behrad Zari wrote:
> We have over 90K concurrent TCP persistent connections on our single haproxy
> instance facing mobile clients on the Internet. Our normal conn rate for 100K
> is around
> 200/sec which I don't have a clue if it is a good one
Thank you for your detailed response Willy,
Some points I should clarify:
> On May 30, 2016, at 1:01 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:53:21AM +0430, Behrad Zari wrote:
>> We have over 90K concurrent TCP persistent connections on our single haproxy
>> instanc
13 matches
Mail list logo
