[29714] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: LoadBalancing products: Foundry ServerIron
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bennett Todd)
Thu Jul 6 12:29:36 2000
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:25:08 -0400
From: Bennett Todd <bet@rahul.net>
To: Karyn Ulriksen <kulriksen@publichost.com>
Cc: "'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>
Message-ID: <20000706122508.M486@oven.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6Mt39TZj+HFMr11E"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0127E258EE29D3118A0F00609765B44831786D@subnet-gw-00053.sitestream.net>; from kulriksen@publichost.com on Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 08:56:34AM -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--6Mt39TZj+HFMr11E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
2000-07-06-11:56:34 Karyn Ulriksen:
> > How about Local Director?=20
>
> Everyone I've spoke to about LD is very unhappy with it's
> performance.
That can only be because you didn't speak to me:-).
Seriously, I've used them a fair bit, and like 'em a lot. Their
H-A failover is superb, they load balance really gracefully, their
hold-time feature (making assignments sticky) works well with simple
website designs for session tracking; and I really love the way they
passively monitor the performance of all servers in the farm and
consistently route traffic to the currently fastest server.
I've heard that they max out around 80Mbps. That was a year or so
ago, I've no idea if that's still the case. I've never hit their
limits. But I can believe that a faster-but-dumber load balancer
would have a higher ceiling.
-Bennett
--6Mt39TZj+HFMr11E
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE5ZLLkL6KAps40sTYRAtzSAJ9IheDfhJKCtIyEDzqzn6qaZNBjPgCfeBVc
LKP3mD0OgSTJibBiBeaXxmM=
=+Oqz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--6Mt39TZj+HFMr11E--
