RE: LoadBalancing products: Foundry ServerIron
How about Local Director? -----Original Message----- From: Richard Colella [mailto:colella@aol.net] Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 5:38 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: LoadBalancing products: Foundry ServerIron Products are also available from Alteon, Cisco (Distributed Director) and Resonate. Last time I looked, none of these products does everything one wants, IMHO, but the set union of features comes pretty close. --Richard
I believe BigIP has a product called DNS3 that serves a similar function. One of our ".com's" uses it to support their dual co-lo set-up.
-TY
-----Original Message----- From: Brantley Jones [mailto:bjones@redundant.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 10:06 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: LoadBalancing products: Foundry ServerIron
At 09:28 PM 7/5/2000 -0400, you wrote:
they also have the dns based solution available on serverirons. -- dima.
Speaking of using a DNS proxy, does anybody know of anybody else doing
this
besides Foundry??
Brantley
localdirecter has DistributedDirector as its Global Load Balancing counterpart. I'm not a big fan of localdirectors because they are expensive, while at the same time lacking in many features, including Layer 5 lb and cookie persistance. Cisco bought ArrowPoint, which I think is meant to take care of those shortcommings by making ArrowPoint its defacto LB solution. Tony On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Sutantyo, Danny wrote:
How about Local Director?
-----Original Message----- From: Richard Colella [mailto:colella@aol.net] Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 5:38 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: LoadBalancing products: Foundry ServerIron
Products are also available from Alteon, Cisco (Distributed Director) and Resonate. Last time I looked, none of these products does everything one wants, IMHO, but the set union of features comes pretty close.
--Richard
I believe BigIP has a product called DNS3 that serves a similar function. One of our ".com's" uses it to support their dual co-lo set-up.
-TY
-----Original Message----- From: Brantley Jones [mailto:bjones@redundant.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 10:06 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: LoadBalancing products: Foundry ServerIron
At 09:28 PM 7/5/2000 -0400, you wrote:
they also have the dns based solution available on serverirons. -- dima.
Speaking of using a DNS proxy, does anybody know of anybody else doing
this
besides Foundry??
Brantley
-------------- -- ---- ---- --- - - - - - -- - - - - - - Tony Bourke tony@vegan.net
The last time I looked at one, I couldn't get it in GigE...100baseTX only. Ergo, I couldn't run it on my backbone.
Sutantyo, Danny: Thursday, July 06, 2000 8:37 AM
How about Local Director?
From: Richard Colella: Thursday, July 06, 2000 5:38 AM
Products are also available from Alteon, Cisco (Distributed Director) and Resonate. Last time I looked, none of these products does everything one wants, IMHO, but the set union of features comes pretty close.
you can do EtherChannel for more than 100 Mbps, but we all know how well that works. Tony On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
The last time I looked at one, I couldn't get it in GigE...100baseTX only. Ergo, I couldn't run it on my backbone.
Sutantyo, Danny: Thursday, July 06, 2000 8:37 AM
How about Local Director?
From: Richard Colella: Thursday, July 06, 2000 5:38 AM
Products are also available from Alteon, Cisco (Distributed Director) and Resonate. Last time I looked, none of these products does everything one wants, IMHO, but the set union of features comes pretty close.
-------------- -- ---- ---- --- - - - - - -- - - - - - - Tony Bourke tony@vegan.net
Yeah, so why bother? As long as load balancers don't have GigE ports, I can't use them and have to use something like Resonate. Besides, LBs don't do site-site load balancing. If you want to do distributed load sharing then there really isn't much choice. Personally, I don't see benefits of LBs that proper clustering wont give you. Component clusters work well, much better than simple LB will give you.
From: tony bourke: Friday, July 07, 2000 8:01 AM
you can do EtherChannel for more than 100 Mbps, but we all know how well that works.
Tony
On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
The last time I looked at one, I couldn't get it in GigE...100baseTX only. Ergo, I couldn't run it on my
backbone.
Sutantyo, Danny: Thursday, July 06, 2000 8:37 AM
How about Local Director?
From: Richard Colella: Thursday, July 06, 2000 5:38 AM
Products are also available from Alteon, Cisco (Distributed Director) and Resonate. Last time I looked, none of these products does everything one wants, IMHO, but the set union of features comes pretty close.
True, thats why I don't particularly like LocalDirectors. Most of the other load balancing solutions do offer GigE, however. I prefer LB over clustering as it gives you more flexibility in what you use as far as your platform. Microsoft's clustering software limits you to microsoft, while I'm not sure if resonate will let you do both UNIX and Windows. The implementation is alot simpler as well, the LB is bascially acting as a glorified router in most cases, so its a very logical and elegant solutions. Clustering, at least in my experience, tends to be more combersome and complex to setup. But that is just my humble opinion. LB vs Clustering sounds like a possible religeous debate ;) Tony On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Yeah, so why bother? As long as load balancers don't have GigE ports, I can't use them and have to use something like Resonate. Besides, LBs don't do site-site load balancing. If you want to do distributed load sharing then there really isn't much choice. Personally, I don't see benefits of LBs that proper clustering wont give you. Component clusters work well, much better than simple LB will give you.
From: tony bourke: Friday, July 07, 2000 8:01 AM
you can do EtherChannel for more than 100 Mbps, but we all know how well that works.
Tony
On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
The last time I looked at one, I couldn't get it in GigE...100baseTX only. Ergo, I couldn't run it on my
backbone.
Sutantyo, Danny: Thursday, July 06, 2000 8:37 AM
How about Local Director?
From: Richard Colella: Thursday, July 06, 2000 5:38 AM
Products are also available from Alteon, Cisco (Distributed Director) and Resonate. Last time I looked, none of these products does everything one wants, IMHO, but the set union of features comes pretty close.
-------------- -- ---- ---- --- - - - - - -- - - - - - - Tony Bourke tony@vegan.net
tony bourke wrote:
True, thats why I don't particularly like LocalDirectors. Most of the other load balancing solutions do offer GigE, however. I prefer LB over clustering as it gives you more flexibility in what you use as far as your platform. Microsoft's clustering software limits you to microsoft, while I'm not sure if resonate will let you do both UNIX and Windows.
Thought I'd chime in- (Used to be head of Tech Support at Resonate) Yes, Central Dispatch works on Windows, Solaris, and Linux (maybe others)- And they can all co-exist within the same cluster. -- Scott Solmonson Speedera Networks Inc. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* scosol@speedera.com / 408.970.1591
participants (4)
-
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
Scott Solmonson -
Sutantyo, Danny -
tony bourke