This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
system:benches10gbps:loadbalancing [2012/10/17 17:32] ze |
system:benches10gbps:loadbalancing [2012/10/17 17:35] (current) ze |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
allowing us to get 800k connections/s (2 clients, 3 servers) without | allowing us to get 800k connections/s (2 clients, 3 servers) without | ||
loadbalancing them. | loadbalancing them. | ||
- | |||
- | FIXME: graph not available yet. Will wait until the bench are over. | ||
Monitoring graphs for the different benches can be found | Monitoring graphs for the different benches can be found | ||
Line 229: | Line 227: | ||
[[http://www.hagtheil.net/files/system/benches10gbps/loadbalancing/ipvs-bit28-affinity-c/rempart-firewall/ipvs_cur.png|ipvs connection tracking]] | [[http://www.hagtheil.net/files/system/benches10gbps/loadbalancing/ipvs-bit28-affinity-c/rempart-firewall/ipvs_cur.png|ipvs connection tracking]] | ||
+ | ====== Conclusion ====== | ||
+ | |||
+ | * As always, affinity helps. In this case, not only with performance, but with stability. | ||
+ | * if you have alot of connection to balance, increase the bits to at least 20. It doesn't take much memory, and it helps alot. | ||