Re: [load balancing] Two Load Balancing Markets

From: Shawn Nunley <nunley [izzat] gmail.com>
Date: Mon May 21 2007 - 16:50:36 EDT

Tony,

I believe that as the 'premium' market expands, the feature set consistently
gets pushed down to the budget/SMB market either through pricing
adjustments, licensing, or even by becoming a recognized must-have, thus
expanding the world of developers and other entrepreneurs. As the vendors
such as Citrix and F5 push the technology envelope, more and more features
that we used to see as revolutionary become rather common. I'm not sure
there is anything new about that cycle though. Even simple vanilla load
balancing is built into Windows... once you start really needing fancy
features, you probably do have the budget to step up to a whositwhatsit
application delivery system, right? The fact is, load balancing almost any
application runs into a lot of issues, and the big boys have already sorted
all of that out to some degree... those who genuinely need it to be bullet
proof usually can afford the premium stuff.

-Shawn

-----Original Message-----
From: lb-l-bounces@vegan.net [mailto:lb-l-bounces@vegan.net] On Behalf Of
Tony Bourke
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 10:58 AM
To: Load Balancing Mailing List
Subject: [load balancing] Two Load Balancing Markets

As a discussion topic:

Load Balancing (or Application Delivery
Appliances/Doodads/Whositwhatsits) has evolved since the dot-com boom,
but instead of evolving into one market, it's split into two, very
separate and distinct markets. While even today they've been treated as
pretty much one market, it's time to treat them separately, as they
increasingly have little to do with each other.

There's the premium enterprise market, with vendors such as Citrix and F5.

In the budget SMB market, you have vendors like Barracuda, KEMP, and
CoyotePoint.

Enterprise/premium clients need the advanced features that the premium
products provide as well as the support that a 50+ person support and SE
staff can provide. SMB/budget clients need the affordability with the
basic functionality of load balancing, plus a few extras (SSL
acceleration, cookie persistence, etc.). The target market for one is
unlikely to purchase from the other. A startup isn't likely to drop
$100K on a load balancer, and a bank isn't likely to try and save some
money by going with a budget box when the difference would represent
even less than a rounding error on their IT budget. There may be some
crossover in some edge cases, but from what I've seen they are
increasingly developing on separate evolutionary tracts.

Agree? Disagree?

Tony

_______________________________________________
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
Received on Mon May 21 16:48:19 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 21 2007 - 16:48:20 EDT