|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: LoadBalancing products: Foundry ServerIron
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:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 8:57 AM > To: Roeland M.J. Meyer > Cc: 'Sutantyo, Danny'; [email protected]; [email protected] > 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 [email protected] > > > > -------------- -- ---- ---- --- - - - - - -- - - - - - - Tony Bourke [email protected]
|