![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 05:03:36PM +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > > 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 ;-). You're right, we have been discussing this privately and agreed we were both talking about higher numbers ; Robert seems to have a good experience of very high traffic ;-) > 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. Why not ? I've often been doing this to check the reliability of the network layer of kernels that I distribute. I often use Tux for this, because it can easily sustain 10k hits/s during months. But Tux is not in mainstream kernel, we have to use other tools. Since I'm working on a task scheduler, I may soon have the base to rewrite my injecter and a fake server to do these tests on mainstream kernels. I think that several tools already exist for this. You can take a look at the C10K project to find links. I don't have the URL in mind, google is your friend. Cheers, Willy - 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 | ||||||||||