SNAT Confusion

[Rodre Ghorashi-Zadeh]

Hello,

>
>no sorry. I assume you've read the sections in the HOWTO on clients on 
>realservers?

I read a few sections in the howto regarding this, but I didn't feel any of 
them were taking into consideration if the realserver was to loop back to a 
service running on itself via the director:

realserver1 -> LVS-DR -> realserver1

Could you please send me a link to what you think is the relevent section? 
Thanks.

~Rodre


>From: Joseph Mack NA3T <jmack at wm7d.net>
>Reply-To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list." 
><lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org>
>To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list." 
><lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org>
>CC: jkrzyszt at tis.icnet.pl
>Subject: Re: SNAT Confusion
>Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
>
>On Sat, 17 Mar 2007, Rodre Ghorashi-Zadeh wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>>
>>>So if the realserver is dead, it can't ask the 2nd request?
>>>
>>
>>I think the fear is more along the lines of what if the service is dead, 
>>and perhaps being able to perform rolling maintenance. Also the app that I 
>>am trying to get load balanced, Oracle OCS, actually mentions the f5 load 
>>balancers SNAT mode, so I believe it is a pretty deep rooted requirement.
>
>yes a few people are starting to ask about the F5 SNAT mode. We don't have 
>it unfortunately.
>
>>
>>>
>>>LVS could be pure netfilter, but it would be really slow.
>>>
>>Enough said. I knew there had to be a reason, now I understand why. Out of 
>>curiosity do you think that this still holds true with todays hardware, 
>>gig nics, dual/quad core CPUs, etc?
>
>I expect so. I can't measure the increase in latency caused by LVS over 
>just straight routing. I haven't done any measurements with netfilter, but 
>everyone seems to know when it's on. The clock rate for everything 
>increases at about the same speed - the same technology is being used for 
>all new hardware - so while the absolute speed is increasing, the ratio of 
>speeds remains the same. The step that was the bottleneck 10yrs ago is 
>still the bottleneck today.
>
>>
>>In regards to my problem I still can't get the reply packets, once 
>>SNAT-ed, sent to the realserver, and sent back to the director to be 
>>accepted by the director and sent back to the client. I am thinking it 
>>might have some thing to do with some of the the /proc/sys/net/ipv4 
>>params, anyone have any ideas?
>
>no sorry. I assume you've read the sections in the HOWTO on clients on 
>realservers?
>
>Joe
>--
>Joseph Mack NA3T EME(B,D), FM05lw North Carolina
>jmack (at) wm7d (dot) net - azimuthal equidistant map
>generator at http://www.wm7d.net/azproj.shtml
>Homepage http://www.austintek.com/ It's GNU/Linux!
>_______________________________________________
>LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org
>Send requests to lvs-users-request at LinuxVirtualServer.org
>or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users

_________________________________________________________________
Have Some Fresh Air Fun This March Break 
http://local.live.com/?mkt=en-ca/?v=2&cid=A6D6BDB4586E357F!147