[lvs-users] SNAT with LVS

Simon Horman horms at verge.net.au
Tue Oct 29 02:10:32 GMT 2013


Architecturally LVS-DR should have an advantage over anything
that acts as a proxy as only packets received from the end-user
need to pass through the linux-director - return packets bypass it.

For this reason I would expect that in situations of high load
that LVS-DR would be an attractive choice.

I also suspect that as IPVS lives in the kernel that it has another
performance advantage which would help in situations of high load.

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 09:34:15PM -0000, Nick Calvert wrote:
> Hmm. Very interesting. Thank you very much. 
> 
> Can I take from this that kernel based SNAT is somehow better for lots of
> concurrent connections? I did see loadbalancer.org use HA proxy - I'd looked
> into this previously, but there was something about it that seemed
> inelegant.
> 
> I guess I should have a play with both. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lvs-users-bounces at linuxvirtualserver.org
> [mailto:lvs-users-bounces at linuxvirtualserver.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm
> Turnbull
> Sent: 28 October 2013 20:50
> To: LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list.
> Subject: Re: [lvs-users] SNAT with LVS
> 
> Nick,
> 
> The SNAT support should work fine for all recent v3 kernels... or 2.6.36
> (only).
> 
> However I would expect that most people use HAProxy for SNAT mode as long as
> its not a huge number of concurrent connections 100K+.
> We use LVS for DR or NAT and HAProxy for SNAT mode on Loadbalancer.org
> appliances and have found it very fast and reliable.
> Pretty sure Barracuda does the same as us and Kemp use LVS + a proprietary
> software proxy they bought ages ago from an old German load balancer vendor.
> 
> 
> 
> On 28 October 2013 19:29, Nick Calvert <nick.calvert at tagadab.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Doing some research to determine how SNAT might work with LVS and I 
> > find lots of old talk involving kernel patches. Is this something that 
> > is a bit more mainstream these days? Is anyone doing it with success? 
> > I'm not being lazy, but would anyone care to summarize the
> state-of-the-art for me?
> > Thought this might be the best place.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
> > http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/
> >
> > LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org 
> > Send requests to lvs-users-request at LinuxVirtualServer.org
> > or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Regards,
> 
> Malcolm Turnbull.
> 
> Loadbalancer.org Ltd.
> Phone: +44 (0)870 443 8779
> http://www.loadbalancer.org/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
> http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/
> 
> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org Send
> requests to lvs-users-request at LinuxVirtualServer.org
> or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
> http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/
> 
> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org
> Send requests to lvs-users-request at LinuxVirtualServer.org
> or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
> 



More information about the lvs-users mailing list