Re: [load balancing] software vs appliances.

From: Alex Samonte (asamonteIZZATsitesmith.com)
Date: Thu Feb 22 2001 - 21:38:22 EST

  • Next message: Alex Samonte: "Re: [load balancing] Cascading switches off of a Foundry switch"

    On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:01:55PM -0500, tc lewis wrote:
    >
    >
    > On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Alex Samonte wrote:
    >
    > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:44:44AM -0500, tc lewis wrote:
    > > >
    > > > i've been spying on this list for a few weeks now. lots of talk about
    > > > foundry and alteon and cisco and such.
    > > >
    > > > anyone use software-based/os-level balancing instead of hardware
    > > > appliances? thoughts?
    > >
    > > Well, some basic drawbacks of software/os level load balancing.
    > >
    > > Each server must now do additional work to make load balancing happen.
    > > The load balancing code adds additional complexity to the site.
    >
    > no. there can still be machines dedicated to the balancing. the end real
    > server machines need no extra complexity.

    Right I was not including that (i mentioned it for resonate. I knew there
    were ones for linux that did the same thing, but I didn't know the names)

    > i'm still talking about network-level balancing, not "clustering" in the
    > sense of sharing cpu/memory, ie: beowolf/related projects. sorry if i
    > didn't clarify.

    Clustering is a misused term, which is why i suggested to tony that he use
    WLBS instead of windows clustering in his example.

    -Alex



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Feb 22 2001 - 21:41:28 EST