Re: hidden interface (ARP) 2.4.20

[Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com>]

On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 00:30:23 +0100
Roberto Nibali <ratz@drugphish.ch> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> [Maybe we should discuss this in private, it doesn't have a lot to do 
> with kernel development anymore.]

To be honest: I think this _is_ indeed a kernel development issue. We are
somehow talking of a performance lack that can be overcome by a simple patch
(call it hack) and some brain.

> > Because when you have to deal with thousands of session per second, NAT is
> > really a pain in the ass. When you have to consider security, NAT is a pain
> 
> Not with a HW LB, and with a SW LB (LVS-NAT) you can very well sustain 
> 20000 NAT'd load balanced connections with 5 minutes of stickyness 
> (persistency) with 1GB RAM and a PIII Tualatin with 512 kb L2 cache. I'm 
> not sure if you meant this when mentioning pain.

I guess he probably meant a _bit_ more. I may add some zeros to your 20000 to
give you a glimpse of a _standard_ load we are talking about. And you can
easily do this with the hardware you mentioned _not_ using NAT (of course ;-).

I guess it would really be a great help if someone did tests like Cons'
"overall performance" ones for network performance explicitly. Like e.g.
performance for various packet-sizes of all available protocol types, possibly
including NAT connections. We have no comparable figures at hand right now, I
guess.

-- 
Regards,
Stephan