Re: Bandwidth and load sharing

Hmm, hadn't considered that. It should still work for two machines,
though.

In a past setup, I had two Internet connections at home. One was a
fast/cheap/dynamic-IP connection, the other was a slow/expensive/static-IP
connection. I used a patched Linux kernel which allowed me to route
packets based on source IP address. Then, if a packet's source IP was from
the slow/expensive IP address, it would route to a different default
gateway than the default default gateway.

There were enough problems with the patch that I'm not sure I'd want to use
it in a production environment. The biggest one was that UDP traffic
wasn't handled correctly. Fortunately, I could use explicit routes for the
few places I was willing to accept UDP traffic from. Of course, that
probably wouldn't be a problem on a production server (all UDP traffic
would be local). And I have no idea if you can do source-based routes on
other platforms.

Later,
scott

----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel E. Visbal <daniel.visbal@sta.sistecol.com>
To: 'Scott Hess' <scott@avantgo.com>; Daniel E. Visbal
<daniel.visbal@sta.sistecol.com>; 'Troy Settle' <st@i-plus.net>; Squid
Users <squid-users@ircache.net>
Sent: Friday, October 01, 1999 10:18 AM
Subject: RE: Bandwidth and load sharing

>
> Where, this solution is a partial solution, because you will have two
> default gateways to the internet on the same machine, and it will pickup
> only one of those two. So you will not get any balance.
> You can however fill the routing tables, either from the routers if you
have
> any BGP peer with your providers or by hand, using a thumb of hand
> algorithm, I mean choosing some networks for one interface and others for
> the second one and entering those by hand. Some has used this in the
past,
> masking the net ip's just with 255.0.0.0 so only 255 entries will be
there.
>
> Daniel E Visbal
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Hess [mailto:scott@avantgo.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 1999 11:10 AM
> To: Daniel E. Visbal; 'Troy Settle'; Squid Users
> Subject: Re: Bandwidth and load sharing
>
>
> Couldn't you run three squids on one machine, and set the port numbers
for
> each differently? This assumes that you can make the port numbers work,
> and also that you can tell two of the squids to bind to specific IP
> addresses (looks like tcp_outgoing_address to me).
>
> Actually, you could also probably do it on one machine with a pair of IP
> aliases. use tcp_incoming_address to bind the proxy and the two parents
to
> the primary and two IP aliases, use tcp_outgoing_address to bind the
> parents to their aliases, and use udp_incoming_address and
> udp_outgoing_address to make them all talk together nicely.
>
> In either case, it's probably important to make certain that none of the
> proxies caches an item from another proxy's cache. If that happens, then
> you're storing 3x the data and doing 3x the seeks. If you can prevent
the
> duplicate storage, you should end up with the approximate disk accesses
> that you'd have had with a single proxy (though cached info will
obviously
> be stored all over the place unless you configure the parents to not
cache
> at all). This assumes that you don't need the scaled-up disk access
> performance of having two caches.
>
> Later,
> scott
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Daniel E. Visbal <daniel.visbal@sta.sistecol.com>
> To: 'Troy Settle' <st@i-plus.net>; Squid Users <squid-users@ircache.net>
> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 1999 2:53 PM
> Subject: RE: Bandwidth and load sharing
>
>
> > I will like to hear about other solutions, using less computers.
> >
> > The solution I was able to come with was not with 2 but 3 computers
since
> > sibling is valid only for data on the cache.
> > I do have one computer for the users proxy that have two parents, each
> one
> > to the different internet providers.
> >
> > On the computer that is being used as the proxy, the relationship with
> the
> > other proxies is setup as parent with closest-only option, and also has
> ICMP
> > enable during configure.
> >
> > cache_peer proxy1 parent 3128 3130 closest-only
> > cache_peer proxy2 parent 3128 3130 closest-only
> >
> > This will give some balance bandwidth since it will retrieve the data
> from
> > the best possible connection at the time the request arrive.
> >
> > Daniel E Visbal
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Troy Settle [mailto:st@i-plus.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 30, 1999 12:24 PM
> > To: Squid Users
> > Subject: Bandwidth and load sharing
> >
> >
> >
> > Hey all,
> >
> > We're in the process of evaluating Squid as a transparent proxy server,
> and
> > all looks good so far. But, there's one major problem we'll be facing.
> >
> > Currently, we're padding some of our BGP route announcements to balance
> out
> > our incoming bandwidth. About 1/2 of our dialup ports are padded, and
> the
> > other half are not.
> >
> > If I bind 2 IP addresses to the ethernet interface on our squid box,
can
> > Squid be configured to balance it's usage between those 2 addresses?
If
> > not, can anyone offer any suggestions for balancing out our bandwidht
> usage
> > once we deploy Squid?
> >
> > One thought that comes to mind is to have 2 caches, one on each subnet,
> > configured as siblings. The only disadvantage to this, is that it
would
> > double our hardware costs.
> >
> > How are other ISPs with 4k users and 2 T1s handling this situation?
> >
> >
> > TIA,
> >
> > Troy Settle
> > iPlus Internet Services
> >
Received on Fri Oct 01 1999 - 12:35:29 MDT