Re: [load balancing] Netscaler

From: Chuck Adkins <chuck.adkins [izzat] theice.com>
Date: Fri Apr 20 2007 - 11:12:35 EDT

Thanks for the feedback on the 10G ...

Anyone using Netscaler that can speak to stability, support, ease of
administration, availability of metrics for uptime/capacity planning/etc

Regards,
 
Chuck Adkins
-----Original Message-----
From: lb-l-bounces@vegan.net [mailto:lb-l-bounces@vegan.net] On Behalf
Of Simon Hamilton-Wilkes
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 11:40 AM
To: Load Balancing Mailing List
Subject: Re: [load balancing] Netscaler

Correct, it's their biggest box and has 8 gigabit SFP ports on the
front. It is a nice box though and has handled almost everything we've
tried (very large scale SSL offload was the exception - not all possible
algorithms are hardware accelerated and our client couldn't change which
ones their app used) I agree a couple of 10 gig ports would be nice -
I'm increasingly having the need for 10 gig on projects, big pipes are
way more efficient than port aggregation, just wish the switch ports
from it would come on down in price, the Woven switch is promising, and
Force 10 have their 24 port 1U box. On the economy front right now I'm
using 8 port 1U switches from HP.

Simon

On 4/18/07, Chuck Adkins <chuck.adkins@theice.com> wrote:
> Looking for some community feedback on the Citrix/NetScaler LB
> solution
> - specifically the 12000 platform - stability, support, admin ease,
> availability of metrics for uptime/capacity planning/etc
>
> Also - as far as I can tell Netscaler has no support for 10G - anyone
> have any other data or know when 10G support is coming?
> http://www.citrix.com/site/resources/dynamic/salesdocs/CitrixNetScaler
> Ap pDeliveryHardwarePlatforms.pdf looks like the 12000 is biggest box,

> the only option with dual cpu, and it does only G.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Chuck Adkins
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> This message may contain confidential information and is intended for
specific recipients unless explicitly noted otherwise. If you have
reason to believe you are not an intended recipient of this message,
please delete it and notify the sender. This message may not represent
the opinion of IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. (ICE), its subsidiaries or
affiliates, and does not constitute a contract or guarantee. Unencrypted
electronic mail is not secure and the recipient of this message is
expected to provide safeguards from viruses and pursue alternate means
of communication where privacy or a binding message is desired.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lb-l mailing list
> lb-l@vegan.net
> http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l
> Searchable Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive http://lbdigest.com
> Load Balancing Digest
>
_______________________________________________
lb-l mailing list
lb-l@vegan.net
http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l
Searchable Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive http://lbdigest.com Load
Balancing Digest
  
  
  
--------------------------------------------------------
This message may contain confidential information and is intended for specific recipients unless explicitly noted otherwise. If you have reason to believe you are not an intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender. This message may not represent the opinion of IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. (ICE), its subsidiaries or affiliates, and does not constitute a contract or guarantee. Unencrypted electronic mail is not secure and the recipient of this message is expected to provide safeguards from viruses and pursue alternate means of communication where privacy or a binding message is desired.
 

_______________________________________________
lb-l mailing list
lb-l@vegan.net
http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l
Searchable Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive
http://lbdigest.com Load Balancing Digest
Received on Fri Apr 20 11:13:13 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 20 2007 - 11:13:14 EDT