[29808] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: LoadBalancing products: Foundry ServerIron
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (tony bourke)
Fri Jul 7 12:18:33 2000
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 12:11:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: tony bourke <tony@vegan.net>
To: "Sutantyo, Danny" <danny.sutantyo@intel.com>
Cc: lb-l@vegan.net, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <99A1A170DF99D211AC4100A0C95D77E8024601B7@fmsmsx77.fm.intel.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007071209480.42396-100000@miso.lga2.vegan.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
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
