![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 00:30:23 +0100 Roberto Nibali <ratz@drugphish.ch> wrote: > Hello, > > [Maybe we should discuss this in private, it doesn't have a lot to do > with kernel development anymore.] To be honest: I think this _is_ indeed a kernel development issue. We are somehow talking of a performance lack that can be overcome by a simple patch (call it hack) and some brain. > > Because when you have to deal with thousands of session per second, NAT is > > really a pain in the ass. When you have to consider security, NAT is a pain > > Not with a HW LB, and with a SW LB (LVS-NAT) you can very well sustain > 20000 NAT'd load balanced connections with 5 minutes of stickyness > (persistency) with 1GB RAM and a PIII Tualatin with 512 kb L2 cache. I'm > not sure if you meant this when mentioning pain. I guess he probably meant a _bit_ more. I may add some zeros to your 20000 to give you a glimpse of a _standard_ load we are talking about. And you can easily do this with the hardware you mentioned _not_ using NAT (of course ;-). I guess it would really be a great help if someone did tests like Cons' "overall performance" ones for network performance explicitly. Like e.g. performance for various packet-sizes of all available protocol types, possibly including NAT connections. We have no comparable figures at hand right now, I guess. -- Regards, Stephan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:31 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||