(kid in a candy store),
Right on. So far it's like you are reading my mind, that is exactly
what I was planning based on our needs. I looked for a tutorial on this and
couldn't find one. The CARP I have done and Load balancing I have done. What
I haven't been able to make work is load balancing on a VIP. Could you
provide some ASCII art with the VIP type (Carp or other virtual address) you
are using?
Another question, if a back-end server is removed from the pool do
the connections bleed off or does that hard RST all the connections to the
backend node? I am wondering if there is a graceful way to remove a
production node for maintenance. Gary thank you so much for the information.
If I can convince my management I am certain this is the solution I will
implement. With no need for terminating SSL or compression this is a fast,
inexpensive solution with great reporting and management. Thanks again and
greetings from the sunny central cost of California.
-W
Wade Blackwell
"Integrity is often more painful and always more profitable than perception
management"
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Buckmaster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 5:51 AM
To: Wade Blackwell; support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Who has some good numbers to share for load
balancing?
Wade,
I'm responding to the list as well so that other folks can get the benefit
of this conversation.
We use pfSense in a CARP cluster configuration for load balancing because we
cannot afford any downtime. Our server pool is tied to a virtual server
address which is actually a CARP type VIP shared between our two pfSense
boxes. This configuration works very well for us and helped us replace two
Cisco LocalDirector boxes saving us a whole bunch of rack space, and giving
us access to far more detailed reporting of what was going on with that
portion of our network.
-Gary
Wade Blackwell wrote:
> Thanks Gary,
> That is precisely what I will be using the LB for as well. If we go
> this route we will be purchasing support through Centipede as well.
Another
> question, when you create the LB pools and virtual servers do you use VIPS
> or the interface IPs on the PF? I am messing around with this at the
moment
> and am having some trouble. Thanks.
>
> Wade B
>
>
> Wade Blackwell
>
> "Integrity is often more painful and always more profitable than
perception
> management"
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Buckmaster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 2:51 PM
> To: support@pfsense.com
> Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Who has some good numbers to share for load
> balancing?
>
> Wade,
>
> We use pfSense to load balance connections to our content filtering
> database. Daily we get approximately 40 million connections with a peak
> rate of close to 3Mb/s to a pool of 20 servers and our application
requires
> latency to be very minimal. Up until recently we ran that using 1.2Ghz
> celeron boxes and they were perfectly capable of handling the load. Your
> bottleneck will be your server pool's ability to process the connections
> before you ever start reaching the abilities of the load balancers to
handle
> the traffic.
>
> -Gary
>
> Wade Blackwell wrote:
>
>> Good afternoon PFsense fans,
>> Greetings from the sunny central cost of California. I am
>> currently pricing out several load balancer solutions. The
>> requirements are pretty basic;
>>
>> -Redundancy (CARP)
>> -Sticky
>> -intelligent load balancing of TCP services (fail a load balanced
>> node/server out of the pool when the service fails) -ability to
>> manually pull nodes out of the pool for maintenance without affecting
>> customers
>>
>> So I know that PF supports all of these requirements and is a
>> good inexpensive candidate for the project. What I am now trying to
>> get a handle on is what can I expect for connections/sec? The proposed
>> hw platform for the PF's is;
>>
>> CPU: Intel Pentium E2140 Dual-Core 1.60GHz, 1MB L2 Cache, 800MHz
>> LGA775
>> RAM: 1GB (2 x 512MB) Unbuffered ECC DDR2-667
>> NIC: Dual 10/100/1000 Mbps NICs (Intel 82573L + 82573V) - Integrated
>> PCIe x8: Intel PRO/1000 PT Dual Port Server Adapter - 2 x GbE (RJ45) -
>> PCIe x4 Fixed Drive - 1: 160GB Western Digital RE (3.0Gb/s, 7.2Krpm,
>> 16MB Cache) SATA
>>
>> Anyone on the list have some benchmarks they could pass along? TIA.
>>
>> -W
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional
> commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
