LARTC
[Top] [All Lists]

[LARTC] Multihome load balancing - kernel vs netfilter

To: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl
Subject: [LARTC] Multihome load balancing - kernel vs netfilter
From: Peter Rabbitson <rabbit@rabbit.us>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 07:57:04 +0200
Delivered-to: sp-com-lists@consult.net
Delivered-to: lartc-list@securepoint.com
Delivered-to: lartc@outpost.ds9a.nl
List-archive: <http://mailman.ds9a.nl/pipermail/lartc>
List-help: <mailto:lartc-request@mailman.ds9a.nl?subject=help>
List-id: "Mailinglist of the Linux Advanced Routing &amp; Traffic Control project" <lartc.mailman.ds9a.nl>
List-post: <mailto:lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc>, <mailto:lartc-request@mailman.ds9a.nl?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc>, <mailto:lartc-request@mailman.ds9a.nl?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: lartc-bounces@mailman.ds9a.nl
User-agent: Icedove 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070329)
Hi,
I have searched the archives on the topic, and it seems that the list
gurus favor load balancing to be done in the kernel as opposed to other
means. I have been using a home-grown approach, which splits traffic
based on `-m statistic --mode random --probability X`, then CONNMARKs
the individual connections and the kernel happily routes them. I
understand that for > 2 links it will become impractical to calculate a
correct X. But if we only have 2 gateways to the internet - are there
any advantages in letting the kernel multipath scheduler do the
balancing (with all the downsides of route caching), as opposed to the
pure random approach described above?

Thanks

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>