[LARTC] load balancing: per route or per interface?

[LARTC] load balancing: per route or per interface?

[Eduardo Fernández]

Hi!

I'm doing load balancing for 5 dsl lines, each one with a dsl router
attached to a linux machine ethernet plug. The problem is that I'm
adding 15 more dsl lines, and I don't have enough PCI slots in the
linux machine to sum up 20 ethernet plugs (I already have 2 quad
ethernet cards).

So I'm considering connecting all dsl routers and the linux machine to
a switch and doing load balancing per route, instead of per interface.
What are the problems? AFAIK I won't be able to do traffic shaping,
anything else?

Thanks!!

Edu
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] load balancing: per route or per interface?

[Nelson Castillo]

> So I'm considering connecting all dsl routers and the linux machine to
> a switch and doing load balancing per route, instead of per interface.
> What are the problems? AFAIK I won't be able to do traffic shaping,
> anything else?

Why not? Just use different classes. Isn't the source IP of each packet
different depending on which line it will be sent to?

--
http://arhuaco.org/
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] load balancing: per route or per interface?

[Eduardo Fernández]

Hi,

On 3/15/06, Nelson Castillo <nelsoneci@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So I'm considering connecting all dsl routers and the linux machine to
> > a switch and doing load balancing per route, instead of per interface.
> > What are the problems? AFAIK I won't be able to do traffic shaping,
> > anything else?
>
> Why not? Just use different classes. Isn't the source IP of each packet
> different depending on which line it will be sent to?

It's not different, the source IP is the linux machine's IP (the one
corresponding to the ethernet card connected to the switch), so it's
the same. However, I guess I could use IMQ for every route, so I would
shape the IMQ interfaces instead. Another problem is that I won't be
able to turn off NAT in the dsl routers, which would be good since
they're not much powerful.

Thanks!

Edu
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] load balancing: per route or per interface?

[Jakub Wartak]

Dnia ¶roda, 15 marca 2006 16:42, Eduardo Fernández napisa³:
> Hi!
>
> I'm doing load balancing for 5 dsl lines, each one with a dsl router
> attached to a linux machine ethernet plug. The problem is that I'm
> adding 15 more dsl lines, and I don't have enough PCI slots in the
> linux machine to sum up 20 ethernet plugs (I already have 2 quad
> ethernet cards).
>
> So I'm considering connecting all dsl routers and the linux machine to
> a switch and doing load balancing per route, instead of per interface.
> What are the problems? AFAIK I won't be able to do traffic shaping,
> anything else?
>

Get a switch thats supports VLANs ( eg cisco 2950 ), make a vlan trunk to pc 
with 2 ethernet PCIs ( 1 to net , 1 to lan ). Connect each ADSL modem to 
switch, put each modem on some individual VLAN. Now configure VLANs on 
network interface on that PC connected to that switch ( i guess it will be 
eth0 ) - you will get as many as you wish virtual interfaces ( like eth0.1, 
eth0.2 and so on ), you can traffic shape on them, use iptables like on any 
other interface...

-- 
Jakub Wartak
-vnull
FreeBSD/OpenBSD/Linux/Solaris/Network Administrator
http://vnull.pcnet.com.pl/
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] load balancing: per route or per interface?

[Eduardo Fernández]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1867 bytes --]

On 3/16/06, Jakub Wartak <vnulllists@pcnet.com.pl> wrote:
> Dnia środa, 15 marca 2006 16:42, Eduardo Fernández napisał:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I'm doing load balancing for 5 dsl lines, each one with a dsl router
> > attached to a linux machine ethernet plug. The problem is that I'm
> > adding 15 more dsl lines, and I don't have enough PCI slots in the
> > linux machine to sum up 20 ethernet plugs (I already have 2 quad
> > ethernet cards).
> >
> > So I'm considering connecting all dsl routers and the linux machine to
> > a switch and doing load balancing per route, instead of per interface.
> > What are the problems? AFAIK I won't be able to do traffic shaping,
> > anything else?
> >
>
> Get a switch thats supports VLANs ( eg cisco 2950 ), make a vlan trunk to pc
> with 2 ethernet PCIs ( 1 to net , 1 to lan ). Connect each ADSL modem to
> switch, put each modem on some individual VLAN. Now configure VLANs on
> network interface on that PC connected to that switch ( i guess it will be
> eth0 ) - you will get as many as you wish virtual interfaces ( like eth0.1,
> eth0.2 and so on ), you can traffic shape on them, use iptables like on any
> other interface...
>
> --
> Jakub Wartak
> -vnull
> FreeBSD/OpenBSD/Linux/Solaris/Network Administrator
> http://vnull.pcnet.com.pl/
> _______________________________________________
> LARTC mailing list
> LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
>

Hi,

Then, will I be able to do load balancing like this?

ip route add default table 221 proto static \
            nexthop via ${EXTGW1} dev eth0:0 weight 2\
            nexthop via ${EXTGW2} dev eth0:1 weight 2\
            nexthop via ${EXTGW3} dev eth0:2 weight 2\
            nexthop via ${EXTGW4} dev eth0:3 weight 2

Also, iptraf will only show traffic for eth0, not the virtual
interfaces, any workarounds?

Thanks!

Edu

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 143 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] load balancing: per route or per interface?

[Carlos Blanquer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1627 bytes --]

>
> > Get a switch thats supports VLANs ( eg cisco 2950 ), make a vlan trunk
> to pc
> > with 2 ethernet PCIs ( 1 to net , 1 to lan ). Connect each ADSL modem to
> > switch, put each modem on some individual VLAN. Now configure VLANs on
> > network interface on that PC connected to that switch ( i guess it will
> be
> > eth0 ) - you will get as many as you wish virtual interfaces ( like
> eth0.1,
> > eth0.2 and so on ), you can traffic shape on them, use iptables like on
> any
> > other interface...


That is a good solution
Another one is buy those PCI that has 4 ethernet plugs (aka 4 ethernets
integrated into one PCI), then you can get up to 20 ethernets in a MoBo that
has 5 free PCIs.
Is not an elegant solution, but is a fast one.

>
> > --
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> Then, will I be able to do load balancing like this?
>
> ip route add default table 221 proto static \
>             nexthop via ${EXTGW1} dev eth0:0 weight 2\
>             nexthop via ${EXTGW2} dev eth0:1 weight 2\
>             nexthop via ${EXTGW3} dev eth0:2 weight 2\
>             nexthop via ${EXTGW4} dev eth0:3 weight 2


Yes.

Also, iptraf will only show traffic for eth0, not the virtual
> interfaces, any workarounds?




Thanks!
>
> Edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> LARTC mailing list
> LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
>
>
>


--
Atentamente,
              Carlos.
-------------------------------
LTIM Member - http://ltim.uib.es
BkP Staff (Servidores, Gamer Area, Tesorean) -
http://www.balearikus-party.org

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2827 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 143 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] load balancing: per route or per interface?

[Eduardo Fernández]

Hi!

Load balancing with VLANs works like a charm, right now I'm balancing
10 ADSL lines, but I will be adding about 15 more in short :)

Still, I can't get it to work with 2.6 :( I'm missing features like
hashlimit module in netfilter. Someone suggested it had to do with my
hardware, lspci shows:

0000:00:00.0 Host bridge: ServerWorks GCNB-LE Host Bridge (rev 32)
0000:00:00.1 Host bridge: ServerWorks GCNB-LE Host Bridge
0000:00:02.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corp. 82540EM Gigabit Ethernet
Controller (rev 02)
0000:00:04.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corp. 21152 PCI-to-PCI Bridge
0000:00:06.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corp. 82557/8/9 [Ethernet Pro
100] (rev 0c)
0000:00:0e.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Rage XL (rev 27)
0000:00:0f.0 Host bridge: ServerWorks CSB5 South Bridge (rev 93)
0000:00:0f.1 IDE interface: ServerWorks CSB5 IDE Controller (rev 93)
0000:00:0f.2 USB Controller: ServerWorks OSB4/CSB5 OHCI USB Controller (rev 05)
0000:00:0f.3 ISA bridge: ServerWorks CSB5 LPC bridge
0000:00:10.0 Host bridge: ServerWorks CIOB-X2 PCI-X I/O Bridge (rev 05)
0000:00:10.2 Host bridge: ServerWorks CIOB-X2 PCI-X I/O Bridge (rev 05)
0000:02:04.0 SCSI storage controller: LSI Logic / Symbios Logic
53c1030 PCI-X Fusion-MPT Dual Ultra320 SCSI (rev 07)

Any hints! Thanks for your help!!

Edu


On 3/23/06, Carlos Blanquer <relayito@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > > Get a switch thats supports VLANs ( eg cisco 2950 ), make a vlan trunk
> to pc
> > > with 2 ethernet PCIs ( 1 to net , 1 to lan ). Connect each ADSL modem to
> > > switch, put each modem on some individual VLAN. Now configure VLANs on
> > > network interface on that PC connected to that switch ( i guess it will
> be
> > > eth0 ) - you will get as many as you wish virtual interfaces ( like
> eth0.1,
> > > eth0.2 and so on ), you can traffic shape on them, use iptables like on
> any
> > > other interface...
>
>
> That is a good solution
> Another one is buy those PCI that has 4 ethernet plugs (aka 4 ethernets
> integrated into one PCI), then you can get up to 20 ethernets in a MoBo that
> has 5 free PCIs.
> Is not an elegant solution, but is a fast one.
>
> > >
> > > --
>
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> Then, will I be able to do load balancing like this?
>
> ip route add default table 221 proto static \
>             nexthop via ${EXTGW1} dev eth0:0 weight 2\
>             nexthop via ${EXTGW2} dev eth0:1 weight 2\
>             nexthop via ${EXTGW3} dev eth0:2 weight 2\
>             nexthop via ${EXTGW4} dev eth0:3 weight 2
>
> Yes.
>
> > Also, iptraf will only show traffic for eth0, not the virtual
> > interfaces, any workarounds?
>
>
>
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Edu
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> LARTC mailing list
> LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
>  http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Atentamente,
>               Carlos.
> -------------------------------
> LTIM Member - http://ltim.uib.es
> BkP Staff (Servidores, Gamer Area, Tesorean) -
> http://www.balearikus-party.org
> _______________________________________________
> LARTC mailing list
> LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc