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?
Do you GNU!?
Microsoft Free since 2003--the ultimate antivirus protection!
Timothy Legge wrote: