As no one else has replied I thought I would. LVS fullNAT is not widely used but is likely to perform very well as it is simple layer 4 routing. Most people use LVS for layer 4 dr/masq mode and HAProxy for anything that needs Layer 7 i.e. a proxy (fullnat).
F5 is the top of the range commercial product so neither LVS or HAProxy are anything like it. However they can give 95% of the performance/features when configured correctly. Loadbalancer.org, Kemp & Barracuda Networks all use LVS for layer 4 load balancing in their commercial products. You are much better off looking at what your requirements are first NOT comparing to a random commercial product. On 23 March 2016 at 12:10, wei wang <lny...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi. > Is there any performance test result report for lvs fullnat? I want > to compare it with F5 hardware load balancer,so if there are some > report, please send to me. thanks. > > _______________________________________________ > 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-requ...@linuxvirtualserver.org > or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users > -- Regards, Malcolm Turnbull. Loadbalancer.org Ltd. Phone: +44 (0)330 380 1064 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-requ...@linuxvirtualserver.org or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
