On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Alex Samonte wrote:
> I'm not a big fan of DSR. DSR was a hack so they can double performance
> numbers (it's not a matter of throughput, it's packets per second)
Sure, its a matter of preference. A hack? lets call it a cool hack
:). One thing I like about it is it eliminates the SI as being the
bottleneck for all network traffic to machines behing the SI. Especially
if u'r doing some heavy transfers to those boxes. U'r also eliminating
rewrites on every packet on the way out. (Although its all
ASIC but u'r still wining on bit on efficiency). Spanning tree diameter
tends to decreases etc...
> Making modifications to my web/mail servers is not something I want to do.
> That's why you get a load balancer. And not all servers support binding
> to a bound IP. Some servers you don't have source or support for, and
> then you are SOL.
I am not sure how the binding affects DSR, every app by default
binds to IP0 (ie all interfaces) on the box unless configured
otherwise. This is probably how many people use it anyways. Its really
not that bad to maintain loopbacks on the box. Its a one time, one
statement deal or in case of windows a few clicks deal!
> Having the LB in the data path is really the only way to make LBs work right
> and if you remove half of that stream, you also lose half of the information.
> When L5 and above information is making more and more of a difference, DSR just
> makes half of it invisible.
This is where I agree. I am curious how people are using L5
information for analysis from a SI. Maybe you can help? We leave
it upto the logging on the respective servers. Personally DSR
looks cleaner from a design perspective and just gives you an option
besides the norm. What u do depends on your design scenario and
priorities. Its like sometimes you win some u lose some.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Feb 15 2001 - 21:32:16 EST