<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> It sounds like you're using the "direct routing" method vs. the "NAT routing" method. There's nothing wrong with using the "direct routing" algorithm; that actually can reduce the load on the load balancer by quite a bit. Just this week, I set up a load balancer as a proof-of-concept, using NAT routing. On a Pentium 4 box running at 2.8GHz, I was able to push 320.3Mbps through the new CentOS 5's LVS, which consumed just under 70% CPU. Granted, that's not a small amount of traffic, and it actually does serve our needs at work very well, but it would've been even larger had I used direct routing. What kind of load balancer are you using? --TP <div class="moz-signature">_______________________________ Do you GNU!? <a href="http://www.gnu.org/">Microsoft Free since 2003</a>--the ultimate antivirus protection! </div> Timothy Legge wrote: <blockquote cite="midbe95b6c50705191415y78a14833kee6e2a7e9354047c@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">Hi I am trying to setup a load balancer to balance two apache servers. The trouble is that the load balancer, client and apache servers are on one (test). The client contacts the load balance which goes to the apache server but the apache server responds directly to the client. I know it is a routing issue but I cannot seem to make Linux route all local network trafic to the load balance. Any ideas? Tim _______________________________________________ K12OSN mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:K12OSN@redhat.com">K12OSN@redhat.com</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn</a> For more info see <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.k12os.org"><http://www.k12os.org></a> </blockquote> </body> </html>