Re: hidden interface (ARP) 2.4.20

[Willy Tarreau]

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