Mailing List Archive

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@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@LinuxVirtualServer.org
> Send requests to lvs-users-request@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@LinuxVirtualServer.org
Send requests to lvs-users-request@LinuxVirtualServer.org
or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users

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@linuxvirtualserver.org
[mailto:lvs-users-bounces@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@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@LinuxVirtualServer.org
> Send requests to lvs-users-request@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@LinuxVirtualServer.org Send
requests to lvs-users-request@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@LinuxVirtualServer.org
Send requests to lvs-users-request@LinuxVirtualServer.org
or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users

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@linuxvirtualserver.org
> [mailto:lvs-users-bounces@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@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@LinuxVirtualServer.org
> > Send requests to lvs-users-request@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@LinuxVirtualServer.org Send
> requests to lvs-users-request@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@LinuxVirtualServer.org
> Send requests to lvs-users-request@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@LinuxVirtualServer.org
Send requests to lvs-users-request@LinuxVirtualServer.org
or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users