RE: [load balancing] Input on RedLine Networks products

From: Basil Hussain (basil.hussainIZZATkodakweddings.com)
Date: Wed Feb 06 2002 - 13:12:51 EST

  • Next message: Glen Peake: "[load balancing] NetScaler"

    Hi,

    > Does anyone have any expiriance with the products of RedLine?
    > They seem to have a product which is very similiar to NetScaler...
    >
    > http://www.redlinenetworks.com/

    This device sounds fairly good in principle. Basically, it seems to act as a
    multiplexer for HTTP requests, with a bit of server load balancing and other
    'technology' (more on that later) thrown in.

    As I understand it, as far as the multiplexing goes, it basically takes all
    the many HTTP requests from clients (which it handles efficiently with it's
    dedicated O/S) and routes them to the real web servers through several
    persistant HTTP 1.1 connections per server. Therefore, it allows the real
    web servers to work more efficiently, because the latency for 'putting up'
    and 'tearing down' TCP/IP connections is negated due to the persistant
    connections and the server's usage of resources is also lower due to a lower
    thread/process count.

    But, I am slightly sceptical about their "RENDEX" and "Densitron"
    technology. I get the feeling of deja-vu reading their literature on the
    subject:

    "...web server response data is processed by Redline Networks' RENDEX
    technology, which analyzes and extracts non-renderable bits such as white
    space and CRLFs from the payload."

    "...Densitron takes optimized, RENDEX-prepared packets of XML or HTML and
    restructures them in real-time into a more space-efficient binary protocol,
    further reducing the number of bits transmitted..."

    Does this sound like mere compression to you? The principle of whitespace
    compression in HTML has been around for ages and GZIP compression support is
    widespread in client browsers.

    To summarise, most of their application examples quote the device being used
    in conjunction with (or 'behind') your existing load balancer, not instead
    of. The only reason I can think of for using one is if buying one would be
    cheaper than upgrading/replacing your old, slow servers or if you don't have
    any room for additional servers.

    Regards,

    Basil Hussain
    ---------------------------------------
    Internet Developer, Kodak Weddings
    E-Mail: basil.hussainIZZATkodakweddings.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 2b30 : Wed Feb 06 2002 - 13:24:42 EST