Very handy to know! Cheers! I've been running a couple of tests over the past few days & it seems, counter to what I said earlier, the proxy's interfering with the LACP balancing too, as it rewrites the origin. Duh. *facepalm*
It skipped my mind that all our logs use the x-forwarded headers, so I overlooked than one! I'm going to test a new config on the reverse proxy to round-robin the outbound IPs. We'll find out tomorrow if the VIF really isn't limited to the reported 1Gbit. Thanks On 14 May 2018 at 17:45, Yaniv Kaul <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 14, 2018, 11:33 PM Chris Adams <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Once upon a time, Doug Ingham <[email protected]> said: >> > Correct! >> > >> > |---- Single 1Gbit virtual interface >> > | >> > VM ---- Host ==== Switch stack >> > | >> > |------- 4x 1Gbit interfaces bonded over LACP >> > >> > The traffic for all of the VMs is distributed across the host's 4 bonded >> > links, however each VM is limited to the 1Gbit of its own virtual >> > interface. In the case of my proxy, all web traffic is routed through >> it, >> > so its single Gbit interface has become a bottleneck. >> >> It was my understanding that the virtual interface showing up as 1 gig >> was just a reporting thing (something has to be put in the speed field). >> I don't think the virtual interface is actually limited to 1 gig, the >> server will just pass packets as fast as it can. >> > > Absolutely right. > Y. > > >> -- >> Chris Adams <[email protected]> >> _______________________________________________ >> Users mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > -- Doug
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
