On Monday 14 May 2007 02:57, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
> 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.
AFAIKR there aren't conflicting opinions, there are just to different
aproaches and i belive that routing solution is user cause it was the first
and because sounds logical to implement multipath with your routing tool.
But iptables has become in a routing tool so far (and much more).
Personaly im using multipath, but i do not dislike the iptables aproach.
> 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.
well, is not impractical with a litle of scripting in your firewal...
#!/bin/bash
# your uplinks weight as in kernel multipath
# ie: link1 link2 link3 link4 link5
weight=" 1 2 1 3 5 "
weight_total=
for n in $weight ; do
let weight_total=weight_total+n
done
for n in $weight ; do
probability=$((n*100/weight_total))
echo iptables.. -m statistic --mode random --probability $probability
done
but the problem arraise when you have lets say 101 links, cause mode random
takes a 2 digit number right?, but this can be changed in the code (use the
source...)
> 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?
Well, the disvantage i see is that you have to move all your routing rules to
iptables space, but in the end you always need the routing table, but it is a
mather of change old habits...
--
Luciano
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
