[K12OSN] OT: Routing issue

["Terrell Prudé Jr."]

Ah yes, the "experts"...reminds me of MCSE's....

If your test phase would permit it, I can attest to the functionality of
CentOS 5's load balancer.  It's actually pretty darned good and even
compares favourably to F5's BigIP box.  Doesn't take that much of an
expert to set up, just some reading.  My setup, which includes two load
balancers in failover configuration, was done in three days, and that
includes the study/learning time, since I'd never actually set up a load
balancer in my life before.  Now, I can do it in less than an hour; if I
add failover, that's an hour and a half.  Oh, and it's a lot cheaper,
too.  :-)

--TP
_______________________________ never having configured *any* IP load
balancer in my life before (I had to learn)
Do you GNU!?
Microsoft Free since 2003 <http://www.gnu.org/>--the ultimate antivirus
protection!


Timothy Legge wrote:
> It turned out to be a load balancer config issue (despite hours of
> protests to the contrary from the "expert")...
>
> Tim
>
> On 5/19/07, Timothy Legge <timlegge at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It is a CoyotePoint 350.  This is a test phase, unfortunately it is a
>> flat network...
>>
>>
>> On 5/19/07, "Terrell Prudé Jr." <microman at cmosnetworks.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >  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
>> >
>> > _______________________________
>> >  Do you GNU!?
>> >  Microsoft Free since 2003--the ultimate antivirus protection!
>> >
>> >
>> >  Timothy Legge wrote:
>> > 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
>> >  K12OSN at redhat.com
>> >  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn
>> >  For more info see <http://www.k12os.org>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > K12OSN mailing list
>> > K12OSN at redhat.com
>> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn
>> > For more info see <http://www.k12os.org>
>> >
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> K12OSN mailing list
> K12OSN at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn
> For more info see <http://www.k12os.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/k12osn/attachments/20070521/7bda29ca/attachment.htm>