Re: [squid-users] LVS/TUN or LVS/DR

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:59:21 -0500, Andrew Sawyers <andrew@zope.com> wrote:
> Any particular reason why you're after DR mode? I have several squids load
> balanced in masq mode and we're able to handle more traffic then most sites
> can aspire too - with basically 0 load on the LVS server. You have to do
> some monkey patching to get DR mode to work; I personally think unless one
> can show performance limitations on why you should go that route, it is an
> unnecessary complexity.
>

I dunno about other OSes but under RedHat Enterprise 3 using the
piranha suite LVS DR required no special stuff to be done. I just
basically followed the the docco on linuxvirtualserver.org (RHEL
Manuals only describe setting up a LVSNAT cluster for some reason).
The only problem I had was deciding which way we wanted to handle the
ARP problem inherent to LVS DR and Tun.

We chose DR mode as with NAT mode every packet has to traverse the
LVSNAT router both incoming and outgoing. With DR/Tun only the
incoming request packet traverses the LVS Router while the response
packets go direct to the client. This has bandwidth advantages as most
of the traffic is going from the squid server to the client. We just
thought why put more network load on the LVS router when we don't have
to, plus with our large environment (possible 40,000 concurrent
devices) we thought LVSDR more scalable.
______________________
David Brown
Senior Systems Engineer
CSM Technology
Adelaide, SA, Australia
> Andrew
> --
> Zope Managed Hosting
> Systems Administrator/Software Engineer
> Zope Corporation
> (540) 361-1700
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Henrik Nordstrom [mailto:hno@squid-cache.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 7:11 AM
> > To: Askar
> > Cc: Squid Users
> > Subject: Re: [squid-users] LVS/TUN or LVS/DR
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Askar wrote:
> >
> > > and yes all the caches are on the same switch, and we will also put the
> > LVS
> > > Director on the same switch with cache servers.
> > > I thinks LVS/DR is what we have to go for ? :) sorry for my stupid
> > question
> > > again and again
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > To make this setup simpler the LVS should have three network interfaces
> >
> > 1: Client network
> >
> > 2: Internet
> >
> > 3: Cache servers
> >
> > or alternatively two
> >
> > 1: Client Network
> >
> > 2: Internet + Cache Servers
> >
> >
> >
> > Using DR with the cache servers on the same network segment as the client
> > network is a bit tricky. Not if you only do interception, but if you want
> > to provide a proxy address as well (recommended).
> >
> > Regards
> > Henrik
>
>
Received on Wed Feb 09 2005 - 15:44:52 MST