Persistance and LVS

Horms horms at verge.net.au
Tue Apr 27 13:05:13 BST 2004


On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:41:04AM +0100, Malcolm Turnbull wrote:
> pb wrote:

[snip]

> >   -----------------------------------------
> >Would changing 15 to 60min Persistance on the LVS take
> >up a lot of memory and processing (CPU/load) overhead?
> >We're running 1gb of memory and dual pentium III.
> >   -----------------------------------------
> 
> I would think it would be fine, 1 GB should handle almost 8 million 
> connections in the timeout period i.e. 60 mins (or 2mins with no 
> persistence) Some one clever might correct me on that but I think its true.

I think Malcom is on the money here.

Keep in mind that each connection entry / persistance timeout
consumes something like 128bytes (actually, it might be a bit bigger
now, but it is still in that ball-park). You can do the maths
(actually you should, my brain has already checked out for the day),
but if you are getting 100 connections/s, for an hour, each from
a unique host, then you are still only going to end up using about 
45Mb of memory for persistance entries. I doubt that will hurt you.
I would also be supprised if you are getting connections from
360,000 unique hosts per hour :-)

-- 
Horms


More information about the lvs-users mailing list