From: Manish Verma (manishIZZATrediff.co.in)
Date: Wed Jan 21 2004 - 23:58:37 EST
Hi ,
I am using Alteon AD3 , I am facing the problem establishing the POP
connection on slow links .When ever i access POP on Slow link i always get
the error:
: Your server has unexpectedly terminated the connection. Possible causes
for this include server problems, network problems, or a long period of
inactivity. Subject '', Account: Server: , Protocol: SMTP, Port: 25,
Secure(SSL): No, Socket Error: 10054, Error
If this is the known problem pl let me know what all settings could be done
on the alteon to resolve the problem.
Regds
Manish
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shawn Nunley" <shawnIZZATnunleys.com>
To: <lb-lIZZATvegan.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 7:40 AM
Subject: RE: [load balancing] Load Balancer Evaluation: Which would you
pick?
> John,
>
> Just to be clear, the NetScaler device does not ever send connections
> 'through' ANY OS, ever. The performance effects of doing this would be
> catastrophic and would not allow us to support the speeds and feeds we
> advertise. Everything is handled within our packet engine which
> communicates directly with RAM, NICs and the CPU, all in kernel mode with
no
> context switching to slow things down.
>
> The difference is worth pointing out since we spent years developing that
> technology in order *not* to be lumped in with devices that are limited by
> generic OS TCP/IP stacks. Nothing personal, but I couldn't let that
> generalization just slip by.
>
> BTW, I hope you're having a great New Year.
>
> -Shawn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Hall [mailto:j.hallIZZATf5.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 12:44 PM
> To: lb-lIZZATvegan.net
> Subject: Re: [load balancing] Load Balancer Evaluation: Which would you
> pick?
>
>
> It would be interesting to find out what engineer said this, but it is
> essentially incorrect. Recent BIG-IP's that have our Packet Velocity
> ASIC (you gotta love marketing folks) have a range of load balancing
> options including full hardware acceleration (the entire connection is
> handled by the ASIC with no host processor support required) through
> partial acceleration (the connection is initially handled by software,
> but as soon as a load balancing decision is made, it's handed off to the
> ASIC for the rest of the connection), to full software load balancing
> which provides all the possible load balancing capabilities.
>
> In regards to the original question. I strongly suggest that you ask
> the top several vendors on your list specifc questions about your
> planned (and future) load profile. All of the boxes you are looking at
> have a host processor running some OS (vxWorks, BSD, BSDI, etc) and all
> of them send some types of connections to the host processor for
> handling. The loads you are planning are significantly above the
> capabilities of some of the boxes you list to handle in software, but
> are probably quite easily handled in a partially or fully hardware
> accelerated modes. Specific characterization of your load profile and
> some direct questions to the vendors should help you narrow down your
> choices.
>
> An illustrative anecdote involves the effect of the Nachi worm on
> several vendors of six-figure cost layer 2/3 switches. Many of the
> vendors sent ICMP packets to the switches host processor for handling
> and their host processors are often amazingly low powered, so a single
> Nachi infected PC sending ICMP packets to thousands of random
> destinations could bring these very expensive and capable switches to
> their knees. Some switches handled ICMP in hardware, but updated their
> ARP tables using the host processor and they were incapacitated by ARP
> updates. So, while these switches quite ably handled the "normal" layer
> 2/3 load, they were crippled by an unusual (but perfectly "legal", at
> least according to the RFC's) load profile that their designers did not
> anticipate.
>
> JMH
>
> Mike W wrote:
>
> > Radware is a switch based solution, while F5 is still a unix kernel
> > based product, which some say takes them out of the "switch market" -
> > their marketing discusses their network processor, but one of there
> > engineers at a trade show last year finally admitted when pressed,
> > that they didn't use it when doing actual load balancing, only if they
> > were a router.
>
> --
> John Hall Test Manager - Switch Team F5 Networks,
> Inc.
>
> ____________________
> The Load Balancing Mailing List
> Unsubscribe: mailto:majordomoIZZATvegan.net?body=unsubscribe%20lb-l
> Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive
> LBDigest: http://lbdigest.com
> MRTG with SLB: http://vegan.net/MRTG
> Hosted by: http://www.tokkisystems.com
>
>
>
>
> ____________________
> The Load Balancing Mailing List
> Unsubscribe: mailto:majordomoIZZATvegan.net?body=unsubscribe%20lb-l
> Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive
> LBDigest: http://lbdigest.com
> MRTG with SLB: http://vegan.net/MRTG
> Hosted by: http://www.tokkisystems.com
>
>
____________________
The Load Balancing Mailing List
Unsubscribe: mailto:majordomoIZZATvegan.net?body=unsubscribe%20lb-l
Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive
LBDigest: http://lbdigest.com
MRTG with SLB: http://vegan.net/MRTG
Hosted by: http://www.tokkisystems.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jan 22 2004 - 00:02:29 EST