[29802] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: LoadBalancing products: Foundry ServerIron
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roeland M.J. Meyer)
Fri Jul 7 11:27:50 2000
Reply-To: <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: "'tony bourke'" <tony@vegan.net>
Cc: "'Sutantyo, Danny'" <danny.sutantyo@intel.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:21:20 -0700
Message-ID: <001801bfe827$01432750$eaaf6cc7@PEREGRIN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007071100040.42184-100000@miso.lga2.vegan.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
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.
