RE: [load balancing] Selecting a hardware load balancer

From: Jay Bivens <wjbivensIZZATdigitalme.com>
Date: Sat Jan 08 2005 - 11:56:46 EST

Hydrawebs...that is old school. They had a very big stronghold in New York
and that Kansas/Missouri area, in the old days.

Sincerely,

Jay Bivens
NetScaler, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lb-l@vegan.net [mailto:owner-lb-l@vegan.net] On
> Behalf Of Matt Davis
> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 3:17 PM
> To: lb-l@vegan.net
> Subject: RE: [load balancing] Selecting a hardware load balancer
>
> heh...come on, we had some hydrawebs floating around in there
> too... ;)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Bivens [mailto:wjbivens@digitalme.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 8:12 AM
> To: lb-l@vegan.net
> Subject: RE: [load balancing] Selecting a hardware load balancer
>
>
> Absolutely!! I had seen F5 Big/IP devices stacked to the
> ceiling at the
> old Herndon Exodus facility. It was depressing to know that
> they would
> be on dovebid and/or eBay in the next 3 months. And I know it wasn't
> any better for any other LB vendor.
>
> Thankfully I believe, slowly but surely some of the 18x devices are
> dying off. :)
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Jay Bivens
> NetScaler, Inc.
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-lb-l@vegan.net [mailto:owner-lb-l@vegan.net] On Behalf Of
> Richard O'Halloran
> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 8:27 PM
> To: lb-l@vegan.net
> Subject: RE: [load balancing] Selecting a hardware load balancer
>
>
>
>
> (IMHO and not necessarily that of Nortels)
>
> But my opinion as an Alteoner,
>
> I agree to a certain extent, but it's more that load balancing was one
> of the hardest hit during the tech boom of late 2000. Back then every
> single dot.com was putting in a pair of load balancers (Alteon, f5,
> radware) into datacenters like Exodus, Global Centre, etc.
>
> The amount of Alteon gear on eBay was testament to the ridiculous
> volumes
> switches that were shipping in that golden era. (world-wide we had
> shipped 35,000 switches by 2001, hence all the Acedirector and 18X
> questions that keep showing up on this list) The only problem with
> having a such a quick, 9 gig port switch that could do 15,000
> setups per
> second and all the L7 features people use, is that people
> don't feel the
> need to replace them.
>
> I am sure that we (Alteon) would happily welcome a new
> bake-off now that
> we have gone through the transition to our blistering new Application
> Switch platform (shameless plug)
>
> But if you can get the media interested in anything without
> Wi-Fi in the
> title, I'll be impressed.
>
> Richard.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lb-l@vegan.net [ mailto:owner-lb-l@vegan.net
> <mailto:owner-lb-l@vegan.net> ] On Behalf Of Jay Bivens
> Sent: Friday, 7 January 2005 1:06 AM
> To: lb-l@vegan.net
> Subject: RE: [load balancing] Selecting a hardware load balancer
>
>
> > Anyways, I like Andy's suggestion of a vendor neutral
> > comparison. I haven't seen a good bake off of all the LB
> > products in a some time. I'm sure this is the forum that
> > would know if one has happened or is going to happen.
> >
> > -Marc
>
> Marc,
>
> Comically enough you probably won't find another REAL independent bake
> off
> again, at least until the LB/ITM industry changes landscape (probably
> in
> 12-18 months). The current state of the industry is that with F5 and
> Cisco
> at the top of the revenue charts there is no motivation for either of
> these
> vendors to submit equipment to a true 3rd party test. Matter
> of fact it
>
> would be detrimental for either of these vendors to be submitted to a
> 3rd
> party testing, they have more to lose from a revenue perspective. A
> true
> 3rd party test would create market awareness and viability to more
> visionary
> products like NetScaler (shameless plug) and Redline because
> they would
> be
> mentioned in the same light as Market "Revenue" Leaders, which is
> ultimately
> bad for (their) business.
>
> This was seen with the Light Reading independent Layer 7 Content
> Switching
> test, where only three vendors submitted equipment for
> testing. And as
> you
> could imagine F5, Cisco, Foundry, RADWare, and Nortel were
> all missing
> ( http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading
> <http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&do
> c_id=26615
> &pag> &doc_id=26615&pag
> e_number=4).
>
> I know as an employee of NetScaler I would love to see a
> independent 3rd
>
> party test where writers would actually open up the vendor boxes (as
> opposed
> to reading manuals or talking to staff and writing articles) and make
> assessments based on the actual technology. But most likely
> you'll only
> see
> one off tests from Veritest, Tolly, or some other
> commissioned testing
> company in order show ageing products in the best light.
>
> So unfortunately Marc, from my personal knowledge, there are no near
> term
> plans in the industry to have a independent bake off anytime
> soon. And
> from
> all accounts it's due to participation more then a lack of customer
> interest.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jay Bivens
> NetScaler, Inc.
> System Engineer
>
> ____________________
> The Load Balancing Mailing List
> Unsubscribe: mailto:majordomo@vegan.net?body=unsubscribe%20lb-l
> <mailto:majordomo@vegan.net?body=unsubscribe%20lb-l>
> Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive
> <http://vegan.net/lb/archive>
> LBDigest: http://lbdigest.com <http://lbdigest.com>
> MRTG with SLB: http://vegan.net/MRTG <http://vegan.net/MRTG>
> Hosted by: http://www.tokkisystems.com
> <http://www.tokkisystems.com>
>
>
> ____________________
> The Load Balancing Mailing List
> Unsubscribe: mailto:majordomo@vegan.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:majordomo@vegan.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
Received on Sat Jan 8 13:00:06 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jan 08 2005 - 13:09:24 EST