Packet length(bytes) | Packet throughput(packets/s) | Data throughput(KBits/s) | Bandwidth using(%) |
---|---|---|---|
60 | 73,382 | 45,790.624 | 45.79 |
100 | 68,456 | 64,622.394 | 64.62 |
150 | 59,671 | 80,198.282 | 80.20 |
200 | 50,768 | 88,538.537 | 88.54 |
250 | 43,403 | 93,055.470 | 93.06 |
300 | 36,883 | 93,831.593 | 93.83 |
500 | 23,133 | 95,863.080 | 95.86 |
1000 | 12,009 | 97,797.493 | 97.80 |
Packet length(bytes) | Packet throughput(packets/s) | Data throughput(KBits/s) | Bandwidth using(%) |
---|---|---|---|
60 | 62,223 | 48,782.893 | 48.78 |
100 | 63,595 | 70,208.757 | 70.21 |
500 | 22,304 | 95,996.299 | 96.00 |
1000 | 11,781 | 97,829.021 | 97.83 |
As the result shown,when the packet length increases to larger than 200 bytes, the bandwidth using of 100MB ethernet is larger than 90%. That means the bottleneck exists in network other than LVS on FreeBSD software. Considering those popular internet services such as HTTP, SMTP, Telnet, SSH, FTP, the packet length is larger than 200 bytes usually. Further more, the hardware we used for measure is very ordinary, and we didn't tuning the FreeBSD kernel. So the scalability of LVS on FreeBSD is very good.
Note: