[LARTC] Load balancing

[LARTC] Load balancing

[Greg Scott]

I am trying to figure out how to do this: I've tried the howto but just become 
hopelessly confused.  (I don' think this is a problem in the howto, it's a problem
with my comprehension.)

Anyway, here's the scenario:

Internal         Linux Router/           4 - T1 circuits to               Another
Networks         Firewall                   the Internet                Internet circuit
   |                  |   |   |    |              |       |       |       |                 |
  +-----------------+  |   |    +------------+------+------+------+---------------+
    --------------------+   |
    ------------------------+

There are really three internal networks for various departments.  The router/firewall
will have 4 NICs.

For one of the internal departments, I want the router to load-balance outbound 
packets among those 4 T1 circuits, which will be connected to Cisco (I think)
routers.  I want the other departments to all share that other Internet circuit.  

And I need the ability to change this policy at will, so I can let other departments
use the combined T1s as needed.

I think I can figure out how to route based on the source network, that all makes
sense in the how-to.  I can set up different routing tables based on the source IP
address/network.  It's the load balancing that is making me crazy - how do I put 
together a load-balancing mechanism for those combined T1s that makes sense?  

Any advice or pointers?

thanks

- Greg Scott
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Re: [LARTC] Load balancing

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

Greg,
	Check out the past archives not to far on June 5th, I put a post up
when I finally was able to do something similar to what you are wanting
to do. I think. I have two ISPs, two SDSL lines, separate IP blocks, and
two routers. I used a linux box as a second round of Nat and a load
balancer sort of. Although that is an option, but as mention in my post,
NAT in the Linux box is a must. The kernel must be patched, I used a
2.2.21 due to booting of a ZIP disk, and running my Linux router on
RAMDISK You can use a 2.4 but it must be patched, and run NAT.

The links you need are in my past post, and if you have questions I will
do my best to assist. Although keep in mind NAT issues are not really
for this list. That's a netfilter mailing list issue. Due my use of a
2.2.21 kernel I could not use iptables, or at least I do not think I
can. I used ipchains as you will see in the post. So if you use a 2.4
kernel you will more than likely use iptables not ipchains.

I used only two connections, but you can use as many as you have
interfaces for. Also if you are not using other routers before the Linux
one than it will be a little easier Good luck.

On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 15:06, Greg Scott wrote:
> I am trying to figure out how to do this: I've tried the howto but just become 
> hopelessly confused.  (I don' think this is a problem in the howto, it's a problem
> with my comprehension.)
> 
> Anyway, here's the scenario:
> 
> Internal         Linux Router/           4 - T1 circuits to               Another
> Networks         Firewall                   the Internet                Internet circuit
>    |                  |   |   |    |              |       |       |       |                 |
>   +-----------------+  |   |    +------------+------+------+------+---------------+
>     --------------------+   |
>     ------------------------+
> 
> There are really three internal networks for various departments.  The router/firewall
> will have 4 NICs.
> 
> For one of the internal departments, I want the router to load-balance outbound 
> packets among those 4 T1 circuits, which will be connected to Cisco (I think)
> routers.  I want the other departments to all share that other Internet circuit.  
> 
> And I need the ability to change this policy at will, so I can let other departments
> use the combined T1s as needed.
> 
> I think I can figure out how to route based on the source network, that all makes
> sense in the how-to.  I can set up different routing tables based on the source IP
> address/network.  It's the load balancing that is making me crazy - how do I put 
> together a load-balancing mechanism for those combined T1s that makes sense?  
> 
> Any advice or pointers?
> 
> thanks
> 
> - Greg Scott
> _______________________________________________
> LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
> 
-- 
Sincerely,
William L. Thomson Jr.
Obsidian-Studios, Inc.
439 Amber Way
Petaluma, Ca. 94952
Phone  707.766.9509
Fax    707.766.8989
http://www.obsidian-studios.com
-- 
Sincerely,
William L. Thomson Jr.
Support Group
Obsidian-Studios Inc.
439 Amber Way
Petaluma, Ca. 94952
Phone  707.766.9509
Fax    707.766.8989
http://www.obsidian-studios.com

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Re: [LARTC] Load balancing

[bert hubert]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 05:06:36PM -0500, Greg Scott wrote:
> I am trying to figure out how to do this: I've tried the howto but just become 
> hopelessly confused.  (I don' think this is a problem in the howto, it's a problem
> with my comprehension.)

What you want is hard in general.

> And I need the ability to change this policy at will, so I can let other departments
> use the combined T1s as needed.

Incoming or outgoing? Outgoing is pretty easy - just make policy rules to
route traffic from different department differently, and use TEQL to
distribute outgoing traffic.

> I think I can figure out how to route based on the source network, that all makes
> sense in the how-to.  I can set up different routing tables based on the source IP
> address/network.  It's the load balancing that is making me crazy - how do I put 
> together a load-balancing mechanism for those combined T1s that makes sense?  

TEQL is probably your best bet. There is also the nano-howto by Julian
Anastasov.

Regards,

bert

-- 
http://www.PowerDNS.com          Versatile DNS Software & Services
http://www.tk                              the dot in .tk
http://lartc.org           Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HOWTO
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

[LARTC] Load balancing

[Paul English]

Hi,
	I've been reading the LARTC HOWTO (major kudos to everyone who 
contributed by the way - this is a "great leap forward" in LARTC 
documentation!) and looking at section 4.2.2 it is a clear answer to one 
of the commonly asked questions. 
	In addition though, I'm wondering a few things. Using the 
multipath strategy - how is failure handled? If one link fails will 
connections be routed consistently onto the good link? And if the bad link 
starts working again will that be detected?
	Also I'm assuming that it is basically a round-robin type strategy 
(assuming equal weights). Once a connection is assigned to one link, it 
cannot be reassigned. Is there any provision for if a connection (or 
connections) saturates one link, will the other link then exclusively be 
used until the saturated one is no longer full?

Paul

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

[LARTC] load balancing

[Lucas Aimaretto]

Hi,

Is it possible to balance load over 2 interfaces ...

Let say I'm shapping traffic on eth1, and for some reason, eth1 brokes
down. How do I, dynamically, swap to eth0 so I wont stop my traffic
going thru the box?

Am I clear?. Please for give me for my english since it is not my
native languaje.

regards

Lucas
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Re: [LARTC] load balancing

[Sjaak Nabuurs]

Yes it is 

I'm running it over 3 lines very nicely

Just use :

/sbin/ip route add equalize \
            nexthop via $ADSL_GW1 dev $ADSL_IFACE1 weight 1\
            nexthop via $ADSL_GW2 dev $ADSL_IFACE2 weight 1\
            nexthop via $ADSL_GW3 dev $ADSL_IFACE3 weight 1






On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 13:50, Lucas Aimaretto wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Is it possible to balance load over 2 interfaces ...
> 
> Let say I'm shapping traffic on eth1, and for some reason, eth1 brokes
> down. How do I, dynamically, swap to eth0 so I wont stop my traffic
> going thru the box?
> 
> Am I clear?. Please for give me for my english since it is not my
> native languaje.
> 
> regards
> 
> Lucas
> _______________________________________________
> LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Re: [LARTC] load balancing

[Víctor Nuño]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1537 bytes --]

I tried this and it works when an interface goes down, but how can I do 
if it's not an interface but one of these gateways that goes down? I 
would like that in this case, the apropriate "nexthop" drops too, so my 
traffic goes through the other two, and when that fallen gateway is once 
again alive, the "nexthop" comes alive too, so it's once again used. How 
can I do this?

Regards,

Víctor

Sjaak Nabuurs wrote:

>Yes it is 
>
>I'm running it over 3 lines very nicely
>
>Just use :
>
>/sbin/ip route add equalize \
>            nexthop via $ADSL_GW1 dev $ADSL_IFACE1 weight 1\
>            nexthop via $ADSL_GW2 dev $ADSL_IFACE2 weight 1\
>            nexthop via $ADSL_GW3 dev $ADSL_IFACE3 weight 1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 13:50, Lucas Aimaretto wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Is it possible to balance load over 2 interfaces ...
>>
>>Let say I'm shapping traffic on eth1, and for some reason, eth1 brokes
>>down. How do I, dynamically, swap to eth0 so I wont stop my traffic
>>going thru the box?
>>
>>Am I clear?. Please for give me for my english since it is not my
>>native languaje.
>>
>>regards
>>
>>Lucas
>>_______________________________________________
>>LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
>>http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
>http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
>
>  
>


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2364 bytes --]

Re: [LARTC] load balancing

[Martin A. Brown]

Hello Víctor,

 : I tried this and it works when an interface goes down, but how can I do
 : if it's not an interface but one of these gateways that goes down? I
 : would like that in this case, the apropriate "nexthop" drops too, so my
 : traffic goes through the other two, and when that fallen gateway is
 : once again alive, the "nexthop" comes alive too, so it's once again
 : used. How can I do this?

You probably should try out the dead gateway detection patches by Julian
Anastasov [1] documented here [2].

I have not yet used the DGD patches, but my understanding is that they'll
detect unreachability of the nexthop and mark a route as dead until the
nexthop becomes reachable again.

As I'm sure you can imagine, it's much more difficult to identify problems
further upstream--and that's what dynamic routing protocols are for,
anyway.

 : >/sbin/ip route add equalize \
 : >            nexthop via $ADSL_GW1 dev $ADSL_IFACE1 weight 1\
 : >            nexthop via $ADSL_GW2 dev $ADSL_IFACE2 weight 1\
 : >            nexthop via $ADSL_GW3 dev $ADSL_IFACE3 weight 1

Best of luck,

-Martin

 [1]  http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/#routes
 [2]  http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/dgd-usage.txt

-- 
Martin A. Brown --- SecurePipe, Inc. --- mabrown@securepipe.com

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

[LARTC] load balancing

[Евгени Гечев]

Hi!
  Can somebody tell what is the best way for load balancing with one ISP.
Here is the scenario (there is a LAN behind the wireless clients):

linux wireless client--------\
                                          ---Access Point (Orinoco 
AP1000)----linux router----ISP
linux wireless client--------/

The two wireless clients are connected to the two different wireless 
interfaces of the Access Point.
They could be two PC's or one PC with two wi-fi cards (I don't think it 
matters). Since the configuration is in use now it is not recommended to 
make very long lasting experiments:).
The idea is to balance (increase) the speed for the PC's behind the 
wireless client(s). Single wireless client achieves 5Mbit/s, but is 
shaped to 4 Mbit/s since at 5Mbit there is big lag, so a PC in the LAN  
when using static routes can't use more than 4Mbit even the other 
channel is free.
Has somebody some experience with similar configuration, and what is the 
best solution:
(t)eql, multipath routing, some variant of bonding, something else?
Is it at all possible to use bonding in such situation?


_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Re: [LARTC] load balancing

[Ivo Vachkov]

Евгени Гечев wrote:
> Hi!
>  Can somebody tell what is the best way for load balancing with one ISP.
> Here is the scenario (there is a LAN behind the wireless clients):
> 
> linux wireless client--------\
>                                          ---Access Point (Orinoco 
> AP1000)----linux router----ISP
> linux wireless client--------/
> 
> The two wireless clients are connected to the two different wireless 
> interfaces of the Access Point.
> They could be two PC's or one PC with two wi-fi cards (I don't think it 
> matters). Since the configuration is in use now it is not recommended to 
> make very long lasting experiments:).
> The idea is to balance (increase) the speed for the PC's behind the 
> wireless client(s). Single wireless client achieves 5Mbit/s, but is 
> shaped to 4 Mbit/s since at 5Mbit there is big lag, so a PC in the LAN  
> when using static routes can't use more than 4Mbit even the other 
> channel is free.

I would probably use CBQ + [e]SFQ. You can define classes for both linux 
wireless clients on the linux router which borrow traffic between each 
other and use [e]SFQ to equal connection speed inside these classes; or 
the [e]SFQ part may run on the linux wireless clients

> Has somebody some experience with similar configuration, and what is the 
> best solution:
> (t)eql, multipath routing, some variant of bonding, something else?
multipath routing ... where you find multipath routes on that picture ?
bonding ... it's applied in

PC1 | NIC | - - - - - - - - | NIC | PC2
     | NIC | - - - - - - - - | NIC |

enviroment.
> Is it at all possible to use bonding in such situation?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Re: [LARTC] load balancing

[Evgeni Gechev]

Maybe my question is not very clear, I'll try to explain again.
I use imq+htb+wrr+esfq, but it has nothing to do with the problem.
The limit is the physical line, a PC behind wireless clients can't use
more than 4 mbit due to physical restriction, it just can't use the
other wireless channel. The shaper on the router is 4Mbit for each
wireless client, or 2*4Mbit=8Mbit total. So, I need a way to combine the
channels, and it cannot be done with classes.

Ivo Vachkov wrote:

> Евгени Гечев wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>  Can somebody tell what is the best way for load balancing with one ISP.
>> Here is the scenario (there is a LAN behind the wireless clients):
>>
>> linux wireless client--------\
>>                                          ---Access Point (Orinoco 
>> AP1000)----linux router----ISP
>> linux wireless client--------/
>>
>> The two wireless clients are connected to the two different wireless 
>> interfaces of the Access Point.
>> They could be two PC's or one PC with two wi-fi cards (I don't think 
>> it matters). Since the configuration is in use now it is not 
>> recommended to make very long lasting experiments:).
>> The idea is to balance (increase) the speed for the PC's behind the 
>> wireless client(s). Single wireless client achieves 5Mbit/s, but is 
>> shaped to 4 Mbit/s since at 5Mbit there is big lag, so a PC in the 
>> LAN  when using static routes can't use more than 4Mbit even the 
>> other channel is free.
>
>
> I would probably use CBQ + [e]SFQ. You can define classes for both 
> linux wireless clients on the linux router which borrow traffic 
> between each other and use [e]SFQ to equal connection speed inside 
> these classes; or the [e]SFQ part may run on the linux wireless clients
>
>> Has somebody some experience with similar configuration, and what is 
>> the best solution:
>> (t)eql, multipath routing, some variant of bonding, something else?
>
> multipath routing ... where you find multipath routes on that picture ? 

route1: linux router-->AP-->wireless client1-->PC
route2: linux router-->AP-->wireless client2-->PC

The PC is in the LAN behind wireless clients.

>
> bonding ... it's applied in
>
> PC1 | NIC | - - - - - - - - | NIC | PC2
>     | NIC | - - - - - - - - | NIC |

Yes. Adding one more ethernet card on the linux router leads to similar
picture.

>
> enviroment.
>
>> Is it at all possible to use bonding in such situation?
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
>> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
>>
>>
>
>
>


_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Re: [LARTC] load balancing

[Artūras Šlajus]

Evgeni Gechev wrote:

> Maybe my question is not very clear, I'll try to explain again.
> I use imq+htb+wrr+esfq, but it has nothing to do with the problem.
> The limit is the physical line, a PC behind wireless clients can't use
> more than 4 mbit due to physical restriction, it just can't use the
> other wireless channel. The shaper on the router is 4Mbit for each
> wireless client, or 2*4Mbit=8Mbit total. So, I need a way to combine the
> channels, and it cannot be done with classes.
Maybe you need this?
http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html

-- 
pagarbiai,
Artūras Šlajus

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Re: [LARTC] load balancing

[Ivo Vachkov]

Evgeni Gechev wrote:
> Maybe my question is not very clear, I'll try to explain again.
> I use imq+htb+wrr+esfq, but it has nothing to do with the problem.
> The limit is the physical line, a PC behind wireless clients can't use 
> more than 4 mbit due to physical restriction, it just can't use the 
> other wireless channel. The shaper on the router is 4Mbit for each 
> wireless client, or 2*4Mbit=8Mbit total. So, I need a way to combine the 
> channels, and it cannot be done with classes.

Hmm ... You're right. I thought you're asking about shaper configuration ...
One way to combine both channels is to run a link between them and start 
link level routing protocol (OSPF for example) but the configuration 
becomes too expencive and somewhat unstable.
The other way to increase speed is to double the capacity of both links 
and then bond them or use another devices (probably run 802.11a devices 
at 54Mbps - for more info mail me offlist).

> Ivo Vachkov wrote:
> 
>> Евгени Гечев wrote:
>>
>>> Hi!
>>>  Can somebody tell what is the best way for load balancing with one ISP.
>>> Here is the scenario (there is a LAN behind the wireless clients):
>>>
>>> linux wireless client--------\
>>>                                          ---Access Point (Orinoco 
>>> AP1000)----linux router----ISP
>>> linux wireless client--------/
>>>
>>> The two wireless clients are connected to the two different wireless 
>>> interfaces of the Access Point.
>>> They could be two PC's or one PC with two wi-fi cards (I don't think 
>>> it matters). Since the configuration is in use now it is not 
>>> recommended to make very long lasting experiments:).
>>> The idea is to balance (increase) the speed for the PC's behind the 
>>> wireless client(s). Single wireless client achieves 5Mbit/s, but is 
>>> shaped to 4 Mbit/s since at 5Mbit there is big lag, so a PC in the 
>>> LAN  when using static routes can't use more than 4Mbit even the 
>>> other channel is free.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would probably use CBQ + [e]SFQ. You can define classes for both 
>> linux wireless clients on the linux router which borrow traffic 
>> between each other and use [e]SFQ to equal connection speed inside 
>> these classes; or the [e]SFQ part may run on the linux wireless clients
>>
>>> Has somebody some experience with similar configuration, and what is 
>>> the best solution:
>>> (t)eql, multipath routing, some variant of bonding, something else?
>>
>>
>> multipath routing ... where you find multipath routes on that picture ? 
> 
> 
> route1: linux router-->AP-->wireless client1-->PC
> route2: linux router-->AP-->wireless client2-->PC
> 
> The PC is in the LAN behind wireless clients.
> 
>>
>> bonding ... it's applied in
>>
>> PC1 | NIC | - - - - - - - - | NIC | PC2
>>     | NIC | - - - - - - - - | NIC |
> 
> 
> Yes. Adding one more ethernet card on the linux router leads to similar 
> picture.
> 
>>
>> enviroment.
>>
>>> Is it at all possible to use bonding in such situation?
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
>>> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
>>>
>>>

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

[LARTC] Load Balancing

[XMundo - Soporte Tecnico]

Hi.

I´m making an script for load balancing of two
cablemodems internet connections toward my LAN.

The problem is that when I try to 'equalize' the
the two internet connections with the weight=1 it
doesn´t work. On the other hand, if I put 5 and 5
it works, but not at 100%, it does intermittlently,
some times works and others don´t.

example:

ip route add default equalize\
 nexthop via $P1 dev $IF1 weight 5\
 nexthop via $P2 dev $IF2 weight 5

Besides, when I open, for example, the firefox browser, it
takes a lot to start navigating, sometimes it works and other
times gives an error and I can´t navigate.

From the server it works properly, but form the clients PCs
doesn´t.

By the way, I´m making NAT toward the Client PCs.

Do you have any idea why does it take so long to start
navigating and why sometimes it works and sometimes doesn´t.


This is the current script running in my server:


#========================
P0_NET\x10.0.1.0/24
IF0=eth1
IP0\x10.0.1.1

IF1=eth0
IP1=xxx.xxx.xxx.7
P1_NET=xxx.xxx.xxx.0/24
P1=xxx.xxx.xxx.1

IF2=eth2
IP2=yyy.yyy.yyy.21
P2_NET=yyy.yyy.yyy.0/24
P2=yyy.yyy.yyy.1

echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth0/rp_filter
echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth2/rp_filter

echo 3 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/gc_elasticity
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/gc_interval
echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/gc_timeout

ip route flush cache
ip route flush all
ip route flush table modem0
ip route flush table modem1

ip rule add from $IP1 lookup modem0
ip rule add from $IP2 lookup modem1

ip route add $P1_NET dev $IF1 src $IP1
ip route add $P2_NET dev $IF2 src $IP2
ip route add $P0_NET dev $IF0 src $IP0

ip rule add from $P1_NET lookup modem0
ip route add $P0_NET dev $IF0 table modem0
ip route add 0/0 via $P1 table modem0

ip rule add from $P2_NET lookup modem1
ip route add $P0_NET dev $IF0 table modem1
ip route add 0/0 via $P2 table modem1

ip route add default equalize\
 nexthop via $P1 dev $IF1 weight 5\
 nexthop via $P2 dev $IF2 weight 5

#========================
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Re: [LARTC] Load Balancing

[XMundo - Soporte Tecnico]

Any idea?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "XMundo - Soporte Tecnico" <soporte@xmundo.net>
To: <lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl>
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 10:35 PM
Subject: [LARTC] Load Balancing


Hi.

I´m making an script for load balancing of two
cablemodems internet connections toward my LAN.

The problem is that when I try to 'equalize' the
the two internet connections with the weight=1 it
doesn´t work. On the other hand, if I put 5 and 5
it works, but not at 100%, it does intermittlently,
some times works and others don´t.

example:

ip route add default equalize\
 nexthop via $P1 dev $IF1 weight 5\
 nexthop via $P2 dev $IF2 weight 5

Besides, when I open, for example, the firefox browser, it
takes a lot to start navigating, sometimes it works and other
times gives an error and I can´t navigate.

From the server it works properly, but form the clients PCs
doesn´t.

By the way, I´m making NAT toward the Client PCs.

Do you have any idea why does it take so long to start
navigating and why sometimes it works and sometimes doesn´t.


This is the current script running in my server:


#========================
P0_NET\x10.0.1.0/24
IF0=eth1
IP0\x10.0.1.1

IF1=eth0
IP1=xxx.xxx.xxx.7
P1_NET=xxx.xxx.xxx.0/24
P1=xxx.xxx.xxx.1

IF2=eth2
IP2=yyy.yyy.yyy.21
P2_NET=yyy.yyy.yyy.0/24
P2=yyy.yyy.yyy.1

echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth0/rp_filter
echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth2/rp_filter

echo 3 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/gc_elasticity
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/gc_interval
echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/gc_timeout

ip route flush cache
ip route flush all
ip route flush table modem0
ip route flush table modem1

ip rule add from $IP1 lookup modem0
ip rule add from $IP2 lookup modem1

ip route add $P1_NET dev $IF1 src $IP1
ip route add $P2_NET dev $IF2 src $IP2
ip route add $P0_NET dev $IF0 src $IP0

ip rule add from $P1_NET lookup modem0
ip route add $P0_NET dev $IF0 table modem0
ip route add 0/0 via $P1 table modem0

ip rule add from $P2_NET lookup modem1
ip route add $P0_NET dev $IF0 table modem1
ip route add 0/0 via $P2 table modem1

ip route add default equalize\
 nexthop via $P1 dev $IF1 weight 5\
 nexthop via $P2 dev $IF2 weight 5

#========================
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

[LARTC] load balancing

[pbruna]

hi, question.
i was reading the howto, and the part about load balancing talk about to
providers, well i have one provider and make to dial-modem conection, so i
have the same gateway in both (ppp0 and ppp1) but to diferent IP.

what do i have to do?

just set up the default route to be a multipath route?

or do i need to split the access?


_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Re: [LARTC] load balancing

[Glen Mabey]

Hello,

On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 01:10:40PM -0400, pbruna@linuxcenterla.com wrote:
> hi, question.
> i was reading the howto, and the part about load balancing talk about to

You mean 'two providers', right?

> providers, well i have one provider and make to dial-modem conection, so i
> have the same gateway in both (ppp0 and ppp1) but to diferent IP.
> 
> what do i have to do?
> 
> just set up the default route to be a multipath route?
> 
> or do i need to split the access?

This might be helpful reading:

http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/
http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt

Glen

-- 
******************************************************************
Glen W. Mabey
Glen.Mabey@usu.edu
http://mabeys.homelinux.com/glen/
******************************************************************
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

[LARTC] load balancing

[Antonio Pérez]

Hi everyone.
I have two ADSL connection with the same ISP,
       ppp0 =>  83.32.32.36 <=> 192.168.153.1
       ppp1 =>  83.32.45.33 <=> 192.168.153.1
and I want to do load balancing wiht the two connections,  so I do:

#ip route add default scope global nexthop via 192.153..1.1 dev 
83.32.32.36 weight 1 nexthop via 192.168.153.1 dev 83.32.45.33 weight 1

#ip route show
192.153.1.1 dev ppp0  proto kernel  scope link  src 83.32.32.36
192.153.1.1 dev ppp1  proto kernel  scope link  src 83.32.45.33
default
      nexthop via 192.168.153.1  dev ppp0 weight 1
      nexthop via 192.168.153.1  dev ppp1 weight 1

But this do not work, when I try do ping www.google.es this do not work 
and I get the mesage "MASQUERADE: Route sent us somewhere else" I am 
using the 2.6.8 kernel. Anybody can help me? please.
Thanks you.
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

[LARTC] load balancing

[comp.techs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 206 bytes --]

--===============0315844856==
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C5EAEA.46E2B39A"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 286 bytes --]

Hi, I have 2 routers  that are connected using 2 gre tunnels over ipsec, and ospf. Ospf sets up the equal cost
route, but uses the 'equalize' in the route. Is there a way to remove/disable packet based load balancing? I would
just like to do a flow based load balance?
 
thx jason

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/html, Size: 707 bytes --]

[LARTC] load balancing

[Indunil Jayasooriya]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 728 bytes --]

try this


echo "11 line1" >> /etc/iproute2/rt_tables
echo "12 line2" >> /etc/iproute2/rt_tables

ip route add 1.2.3.0/29 <http://203.115.26.64/29> dev eth0 src
1.2.3.6<http://203.115.26.66/>table line1
ip route add default via 1.2.3.5 <http://203.115.26.65/> table line1

ip route add 192.168.6.0/24 dev eth1 src 192.168.6.4 table line2
ip route add default via 192.168.6.254 table line2

ip rule add from1.2.3.6 <http://203.115.26.66/> table line1
ip rule add from 192.168.6.4 table line2

ip route add default scope global nexthop via
1.2.3.5<http://203.115.26.65/>dev eth0 weight 1 nexthop via
192.168.6.254 dev eth1 weight 1


pls change ips accordingly. and add these to rc.local file



-- 
Thank you
Indunil Jayasooriya

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1823 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

[LARTC] load balancing

[Indunil Jayasooriya]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 114 bytes --]

http://www.linuxquestions.org/linux/answers/Networking/Spanning_Multiple_DSLs


-- 
Thank you
Indunil Jayasooriya

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 243 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

[LARTC] load balancing

[Charlie Meyer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 852 bytes --]

I ive set up a working linux router with load balancing as per the lartc
guide. Everything is working properly, except for the load balancing does
not seem to be equally balance the load. The first line gets about 60% of
the incoming load, the 2nd line gets about 40%, and the 3rd line hardly gets
any of it at all. The outgoing load is evenly balanced among all three
lines. 

 

I did not set any weights when I set up the route, so this is confusing to
me. BTW, I have been using ntop as well as ibmonitor to view the load over
each line. 

 

when I have tried setting weights, such as 1 for the first line, 2 for the
second line, and 4 for the second line, it still doesn't balance correctly.

 

I am using fedora core 6 with all the latest packages and kernel as per yum.

 

any ideas here would be greatly appreciated

 

thanks

 

-charlie


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3769 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

[Grant Taylor]

Charlie Meyer wrote:
> I ive set up a working linux router with load balancing as per the lartc 
> guide. Everything is working properly, except for the load balancing 
> does not seem to be equally balance the load. The first line gets about 
> 60% of the incoming load, the 2^nd line gets about 40%, and the 3^rd 
> line hardly gets any of it at all. The outgoing load is evenly balanced 
> among all three lines.
> 
> I did not set any weights when I set up the route, so this is confusing 
> to me. BTW, I have been using ntop as well as ibmonitor to view the load 
> over each line.
> 
> when I have tried setting weights, such as 1 for the first line, 2 for 
> the second line, and 4 for the second line, it still doesn’t balance 
> correctly.
> 
> I am using fedora core 6 with all the latest packages and kernel as per yum.
> 
> any ideas here would be greatly appreciated

Keep in mind that you do not have any control of the traffic that is 
inbound to you.  The only thing that you can control is the traffic that 
you send.

So, what is probably happening is that your system is load balancing the 
out bound traffic, which is being replied to by the server.  Consider 
you have 3 connections, one out bound request each.  Unless you are 
dealing with globally routable IP addresses behind your system and are 
not NATing at your system, responses to out bound requests will come 
back in to the same IP that the request originated from.  With that in 
mind, consider one reply being a 512 byte response, one reply being a 1k 
byte response, and one reply being a 20 k byte response.  In this case, 
one connection will receive 512 bytes, another 1 k byte, and the last 20 
k bytes.

I think we can all agree that this is FAR from a load balanced scenario. 
  However, we do not have any control over the reverse route, this is at 
best our providers control.  If each link is with a different provider, 
there is no way to load balance the traffic back to our system.  If, by 
chance the links are all with one provider and they are willing to work 
with you and you do not have any reverse path filtering in place, the 
provider could spread the load across all the links evenly.  However, 
this is way beyond the scope of "Load Balancing" under Linux, or any 
thing else for that matter, and thus is more or less just accepted.

If you would like, I can go in to more depth as to why this does not 
work as is and what would have to be done to make this work.

Incidentally, this is also why QoS does not really work well on inbound.



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