On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Willy Tarreau <w#1wt.eu> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 02:38:15PM +0800, Jeffrey 'jf' Lim wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> I *believe* that tproxy v4 does not need ip_conntrack while cttproxy (v2)
> needed
> it. But I may be wrong. Anyway, if you still have ip_conntrack loaded for
> MASQUERADE, then it's still here eating your CPU cycles and memory, no
> matter
> if you use it or not.
>
cycles as well? MG, that's bad. But thanks for the clarification. I've got a kernel patched with tproxy right now - i'll test things out tomorrow, and let you know...
thanks,
-jf
Received on 2008/06/25 12:22
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 2008/06/25 12:31 CEST