[71130] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NLB Recommendations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Keith Washington)
Wed Jun 9 14:29:37 2004
In-Reply-To: <s0c6fb4e.072@fstest05.fb>
To: "John Neiberger" <John.Neiberger@efirstbank.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu, owner-nanog@merit.edu
From: "Keith Washington" <KWashington@weather.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 14:28:14 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
We've used Foundry ServerIron's successfully in various configurations for the
last four years.
Keith
Keith Washington
The Weather Channel Interactive, TWCi
770-226-2685 office, 404-225-0221 pager
keithw.pager@1weather.com text page
"John Neiberger"
<John.Neiberger@efir To: <nanog@merit.edu>
stbank.com> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: NLB Recommendations
owner-nanog@merit.ed
u
06/09/2004 01:57 PM
> I'm looking for recommendations for network load balancers. These, at
> this time, will primarily be used to attach to a cluster of
webservers
> although I would like a solution which can be repurposed to other
> applications later. I am looking at F5's Big IP, Cisco's SLB, and
> Foundry's ServerIron at this time.
We have Cisco 11503s and F5 Big IPs in our network. I bought the Big
IPs because I was getting rather fed up with the Cisco stuff. Each has
their quirks but I think I prefer the F5, especially for box-to-box
redundancy. That's really rough with the Cisco gear unless you want to
fork out a lot of cash for their ridiculously expensive ethernet modules
so you can get a direct box-to-box connection.
If you have load-balanced servers behind an F5 that also must be
available for direct connection, then the F5 is a huge pain, while that
is extremely simple with the Cisco gear. Other than that, I think I the
F5 is a better product and easier to manage once you get used to how it
works. If you've previously used the Cisco gear, you have to unlearn a
few concepts and terms in order to make sense of the F5 world.
Regards,
John
--
