On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:02:50 -0500 Adrian Chung <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I didn't have trouble following the HOWTO, it was easy to follow. I'm > just not sure I understand the reasoning for having to do certain > steps, but that's not necessarily the goal of your HOWTO. Well, up to a certain point it is, as at least some understanding is necessary to apply this setup to different situations. For instance, in your last two messages you seem to have tried to test the load balancing with individual cases. As I wrote, this is not possible; you need a certain amount of traffic to see it. The reason is a rather complex interaction of the routing cache and the connection tracking. Give the thing full load, and you'll see. Look at this: eth0: RX bytes:628147759 (599.0 Mb) TX bytes:143581725 (136.9 Mb) eth2: RX bytes:717176203 (683.9 Mb) TX bytes:149120155 (142.2 Mb) We had a power failure yesterday in the afternoon, so numbers are still small. I don't use weights and the nominal capacity of both lines is the same. You see, balancing is not 100% fair, but it's more or less close. For eth2 it certainly makes a difference to download 683 MB or 1282 MB. Also, I didn't check the logfiles, and it's possible that there was a failure in eth0 (or in eth2 or in both). So this doesn't necessarily represent the balancing. But I'm used to numbers in about this ratio. > Should I post my confusions to the list? Or offlist to you personally? Probably it's better to the list. I'm far from being an expert, and we all can learn something. Also, right now, I'm very busy and will not be able to modify that howto too soon. > Yeah, that's what I'm using. I'm still not having any luck, but it > might likely be my fault. -- Christoph Simon ciccio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- ^X^C q quit :q ^C end x exit ZZ ^D ? help .
