RE: LoadBalancing products: Foundry ServerIron
How about load balancing on the router? Any idea? I heard someone is using ospf method to load balance? -----Original Message----- From: tony bourke [mailto:tony@vegan.net] Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 8:57 AM To: Roeland M.J. Meyer Cc: 'Sutantyo, Danny'; lb-l@vegan.net; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: LoadBalancing products: Foundry ServerIron 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
Hi Danny, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about load balancing routers? Or load balancing output from load balancers? Tony On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Sutantyo, Danny wrote:
How about load balancing on the router? Any idea? I heard someone is using ospf method to load balance?
-----Original Message----- From: tony bourke [mailto:tony@vegan.net] Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 8:57 AM To: Roeland M.J. Meyer Cc: 'Sutantyo, Danny'; lb-l@vegan.net; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: LoadBalancing products: Foundry ServerIron
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 tony@vegan.net
participants (2)
-
Sutantyo, Danny -
tony bourke