Hi Pasi,
Do you know if ubuntu 12.04 has these optimized drivers or not?
I think Canonical developers are going to add the drivers later
in some update to Ubuntu 12.04 packages. The drivers are not yet in 12.04.
I saw some discussion from Canonical guys on xen-devel about that.
On 29/04/2012 20:01, Willy Tarreau wrote:
What I could suggest would be :
- reduce /proc/sys/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_tcp_timeout_time_wait to 30s
- increase /proc/sys/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_max to 524288 conns.
- increase hashsize to 131072 buckets.
This will help you support
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 03:40:58PM +0200, Lukas Tribus wrote:
Note however that you will no longer be able to carry out any
connection tracking logic on matched packes, including no NAT,
syncookie protection, etc.
Are you sure syncookie protection doesn't work with -j NOTRACK? I
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:19:26PM +0200, Sebastien Estienne wrote:
Hi Pasi,
Do you know if ubuntu 12.04 has these optimized drivers or not?
I think Canonical developers are going to add the drivers later
in some update to Ubuntu 12.04 packages. The drivers are not yet in 12.04.
I saw some
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 06:18:52PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
I'm using VPS machines from Linode.com, they are quite powerful. They're
based on Xen. I don't see the network card saturated.
OK I see now. There's no point searching anywhere else. Once again you're
a victim of the high
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:06:25PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
I'd say that your numbers are more or less in line with a recent benchmark
we conducted at Exceliance and which is summarized below (each time the
hardware was running a single VM) :
Hi Pasi,
Do you know if ubuntu 12.04 has these optimized drivers or not?
thanx
--
Sebastien E.
Le 30 avr. 2012 à 11:06, Pasi Kärkkäinen pa...@iki.fi a écrit :
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 06:18:52PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
I'm using VPS machines from Linode.com, they are quite powerful.
Hi Bar,
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 02:09:42PM +0300, Bar Ziony wrote:
Hi,
I have 2 questions about a haproxy setup I configured.
This is the setup:
LB server (haproxy 1.4.20, debian squeeze 64-bit) in http mode, forwarding
requests to a single nginx web server, that resides on a different
Hi Willy,
Thanks for your time.
I really didn't know this are such low results.
I ran 'ab' from a different machine than haproxy and nginx (which are
different machines too). I also tried to run 'ab' from multiple machines
(not haproxy or nginx) and the results are pretty much / 3 the single
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 05:25:01PM +0300, Bar Ziony wrote:
Hi Willy,
Thanks for your time.
I really didn't know this are such low results.
I ran 'ab' from a different machine than haproxy and nginx (which are
different machines too). I also tried to run 'ab' from multiple machines
(not
Willy,
Thanks as always for the very detailed and helpful answer.
I'll reply in-line, like you ;-)
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 05:25:01PM +0300, Bar Ziony wrote:
Hi Willy,
Thanks for your time.
I really didn't know this
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 09:05:26PM +0300, Bar Ziony wrote:
I'm using VPS machines from Linode.com, they are quite powerful. They're
based on Xen. I don't see the network card saturated.
OK I see now. There's no point searching anywhere else. Once again you're
a victim of the high
12 matches
Mail list logo