nmadrane

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: 10% packet loss using NAT/LoadBalancer #51752
    nmadrane
    Member

    Actually, Zeroshell is able to do load balancing even on the same subnet. In my original setup I had 2 NICs/subnets : one for my computers (192.168.0.X) and one for my Internet gateways (10.0.0.X), so NAT had to be activated.

    In order to isolate my problem of packet loss I tried to put everything on the same subnet, so that I can disable NAT and keep only load balancing.

    in reply to: 10% packet loss using NAT/LoadBalancer #51750
    nmadrane
    Member

    I have news. I turned off NAT and used only Load Balancing (by using the same network card for balancing between several Internet lines). And the results are the same : 10% packet loss at the Zeroshell box.

    Here is my setup :
    My PC is 192.168.0.100
    My ZS box is 192.168.0.1
    My Internet gateways are 192.168.0.2, 192.168.0.3 and 192.168.0.4

    NAT is disabled
    Load Balancer is activated (192.168.0.2 is the only gateway enabled)

    A traceroute (WinMTR) on http://www.google.com gives the following :

    Hostname_______Loss _____Sent______Received
    192.168.0.1______11% _____396_______355
    192.168.0.2______0%______1316______ 1316
    193.194.50.130___0%______1313______ 1313
    etc.

    in reply to: 10% packet loss using NAT/LoadBalancer #51748
    nmadrane
    Member

    Hi,

    I don’t have any QoS rule in my ZeroShell box. And the only traffic is SIP. However I tried to look at how HTTP behaves : the user experience is bad, pages are slow to load. When I go directly to the Internet, bypassing the ZeroShell box, the navigation is much better.

    I thought that the main difference between traceroute and WinMTR is that WinMTR is able to tell you the percentage of packet loss at EACH node on the route. So if you do A->B->C->D, WinMTR could perfectly tell you that there is a 10% loss at B, but 0% loss at C and D. Is that what you get with the linux traceroute ?

    By the way, do you know any other tool like WinMTR/traceroute that I could try in order to investigate this issue ? Otherwise, I think I will rebuild the whole ZeroShell box from scratch with a completely new hardware 🙁

    Thanks a lot for your time.

    in reply to: 10% packet loss using NAT/LoadBalancer #51746
    nmadrane
    Member

    Thank you for the information. I will try with your patch. However it seems very strange that the raw installation of Zeroshell gives me such problems with a simple NAT/loadbalancing. I am pretty sure that something in my configuration is wrong. After all I am just pinging… and there is no reason to loose packets.

    Could anyone try WinMTR on his system to see if it has the same issue ? I ran WinMTR, I specified an interval value of 0.2 instead of 1.0 (in the options menu) and then I simply tried to ping http://www.google.com.

    On the route, all nodes gives me 0% loss except the very first node… the one that corresponds to the NAT traversal….

    in reply to: 10% packet loss using NAT/LoadBalancer #51744
    nmadrane
    Member

    I didn’t know that there were a patch for netbalance/qos. Where can I download it ? I would like to try it.

    For WinMTR I don’t know if it talks about the request or reply packets.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)