Re: cttproxy performance drop?

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Willy Tarreau <w#1wt.eu> wrote:

> Hi JF,
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 04:09:41PM +0800, Jeffrey 'jf' Lim wrote:
> > hi guys, I'm sort of looking into using haproxy, but with cttproxy in
> > order to get the lb to be in front of the machines that are going to
> > be load-balanced. Havent done too much testing yet, but I saw an old
> > post that claims that the patch drops performance by about 30%, and
> > was wondering if the list was getting the same thing, or if the
> > performance has changed a fair bit in recent years. Could somebody
> > provide some much appreciated feedback regarding updated versions of
> > the patch + kernel?
> >
>
> It's not cttproxy per-se which causes the performance drop, but
> ip_conntrack.
> If you already have ip_conntrack loaded and are satisfied with the
> performance,
> then you shouldn't worry. But if you currently don't use ip_conntrack on
> the
> machine, then you may have a big surprize after loading it :-/
>

ok, thanks for clarifying. As far as I know, ip_conntrack would only be used for the MASQUERADE target, right? If i need tproxy (= renamed cttproxy???), I wouldnt need to care, right?

-jf Received on 2008/06/25 08:38