The CS800 chassis is a pretty big box, about the size of a Cisco 7507. Last I checked it had 4x RAM capability of the CS100 (and 2x of the CS150). Since the major source of my woes appeared to be memory related, it didn't look like a good jump $-wise and u-wise (I'm guessing at 16u ?) to serve the same number of devices. As I remember, it's a 10 slot chassis - two for the management modules. How many slots do you have populated on your chassis? Are they all GigE or 10/100s or a mix? Karyn -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Noetzelman [mailto:jjn@peoplelink.com] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 5:40 PM To: Karyn Ulriksen Subject: RE: Arrowpoint Load Balancing Devices Never saw any problems like that, but the key there is that you were running on a -100 and not an -800 ... the arrowpoint guys were very candid with me that there were some issues with the -100 ... but since the -100 is far too small for the amount of data I push, I didn't even consider it. Incidentally, the articles Larry was referring to can be found at: http://slashdot.org/articles/00/05/17/1318233.shtml and http://slashdot.org/articles/00/05/18/1427203.shtml J --- Jeremy Noetzelman Director of Network Operations PeopleLink -----Original Message----- From: Karyn Ulriksen [mailto:kulriksen@publichost.com] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 5:37 PM To: 'Jeremy Noetzelman' Cc: 'nanog@merit.edu'; 'lb-l@vegan.net' Subject: RE: Arrowpoint Load Balancing Devices What version of code were you running on those Arrowpoints? I'm starting to wonder if I didn't just get fed some bad hardware. I ran one of the leading software publisher's FTP servers on our CS100 and it got real ugly. I had the techs and engineers at Arrowpoint go over the configuration from top to bottom. It would hit around 250 connections, crash, and reboot. It wouldn't reactivate the service until after we did a cold reboot. Did you ever see anything like that? The issue persisted from their Version 2 code thru Version 3. Karyn -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Noetzelman [mailto:jjn@peoplelink.com] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 5:22 PM To: Karyn Ulriksen Subject: RE: Arrowpoint Load Balancing Devices See inline responses --- Jeremy Noetzelman Director of Network Operations PeopleLink -----Original Message----- From: Karyn Ulriksen [mailto:kulriksen@publichost.com] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 5:12 PM To: 'Jeremy Noetzelman' Cc: 'nanog@merit.edu'; 'lb-l@vegan.net' Subject: RE: Arrowpoint Load Balancing Devices I keep getting these vague responses. But, I _really_ interested in what was done with them. I hate to ask this level of detail (and I'm not some marketing wig), but I _really_ want to know. Could you answer the following questions? How come you wouldn't consider the Cisco, Alteon or F5? ---- I've used Alteon before. Never again. A chore to configure, and atrocious performance in a live environment. F5 has a solid product, but I dislike the architecture they have for a high volume site. It's certainly something worth considering for a lower volume site that doesn't mind having a PC do the load balancing, but I prefer something ASIC based. Cisco provides similar performance to the F5 in tests I ran a while back, and is a cross between a PC and a switch ... I don't like the architecture, and the price you pay for the Cisco logo is a little steep too. ---- What tests did you run? ---- Initially we ran basic stress testing, followed by more in depth stress testing using custom built tools running on 20 Linux boxes. Once those were passed, we did the ultimate test and ran them in the production network for a short time. ---- Which services did you configure and how many rule sets? ---- We loadbalance everything from web and ftp to email, dns, instant messaging, persistant chat connections, and some other internal stuff that we do. I don't recall the exact number of rulesets, but we have about 30 virtual servers and about 150 real servers being load balanced. ---- Did you run a moderately high volume of FTP service across it (say 500 simultaneous over 2 servers)? ---- Our FTP services run on 3 boxes and we get about 300 simul with no problems. Testing the arrowpoint boxes, we were able to easily get 3000 simultaneous FTP connections across 3 servers. Hope this helps J -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Noetzelman [mailto:jjn@peoplelink.com] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 5:04 PM To: Karyn Ulriksen Subject: RE: Arrowpoint Load Balancing Devices I'm in the process of switching from Foundry to Arrowpoint. I wouldn't even consider Cisco, or Alteon, or F5. Foundry and Arrowpoint both make an excellent product, it came down to the GS-800 fitting my needs more precisely. I eval'd them both over a period of a couple months (and I had originally been using ServerIrons) .... decided to make the switch based on performance and scalability that the SI just can't match up to right now. J --- Jeremy Noetzelman Director of Network Operations PeopleLink -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Karyn Ulriksen Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 4:54 PM To: 'lb-l@vegan.net' Cc: 'nanog@merit.edu' Subject: Arrowpoint Load Balancing Devices I'm wondering how other ISPs are using Arrowpoint devices in their networks. They must be successfully implemented in some networks with out many gotchas, considering that Cisco bought them. After six months of testing Arrowpoint, I ended going with another LB solutions. But I can't help but wonder what others are doing with them. Have they made enough changes in their product that I should take a look at them again? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Best regards, Karyn Ulriksen Director of Network Operations PublicHost, A SiteStream Company 22 Mauchly, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92618 USA Phone: (949) 743-2000 email: kulriksen@publichost.com URL: http://www.publichost.com