Re: [load balancing] Two Load Balancing Markets

From: Seth Kusiak <SKusiak [izzat] asicentral.com>
Date: Tue May 22 2007 - 10:14:56 EDT

Thanks. I was contacted offline by F5 and they sent me the same link.
Apparently they started to offer 4hr RMA right after I renewed my
service contract earlier this year.

Thanks,

Seth

-----Original Message-----
From: lb-l-bounces@vegan.net [mailto:lb-l-bounces@vegan.net] On Behalf
Of Leif B Rasmussen
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 10:02 AM
To: 'Load Balancing Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [load balancing] Two Load Balancing Markets

F5 does have a 4 hour RMA process, although you need take a look at
http://www.f5.com/customer_support/depot_loc.html to determine if you
are in the coverage area (the coverage is pretty extensive though).

Also, the higher end models can have redundant power supplies, but don't
have them by default (except on enterprise versions) as a cost savings
for those of philosophy stated earlier, why have redundant power
supplies or 4 hour RMA when you have a redundant pair. Some would say,
the standby is your RMA, but again that is choice each company makes as
they build out their infrastructure and determine their risk tolerance.

Additionally, F5 offers a non-production program, that gives steep
discounts on hardware used for testing purposes, but non-production
boxes can be use in a production environment temporarily to replace
failed hardware. Couple that with the multiple boot partitions and you
have a pretty nice cold standby box without the need for a 4 hour RMA.

-----Original Message-----
From: lb-l-bounces@vegan.net [mailto:lb-l-bounces@vegan.net] On Behalf
Of Chuck Adkins
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 4:18 PM
To: Load Balancing Mailing List
Subject: Re: [load balancing] Two Load Balancing Markets

I disagree - 4 hour support is a must. We buy and deploy $100K+ gear in
redundant pairs to ensure that our services will never be unavailable -
ever. If I am forced to run w/o the failover partner for X hours -
those are X hours where I am vulnerable to a complete outage. On the
same note - it is preposterous to me that F5 (or anyone) would sell
their high-end gear with only a single power supply in the chassis.

WRT 4 hour RMA - I got a quote from F5 about 8 weeks ago for their new
RMA process.

I recently evaluated switching vendors - with our requirements
(enterprise gear, 10G, mature/focused organization, etc) I found they
were the only game in town.

Regards,
 
Chuck Adkins

-----Original Message-----
From: lb-l-bounces@vegan.net [mailto:lb-l-bounces@vegan.net] On Behalf
Of Simon Hamilton-Wilkes
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:55 PM
To: 'Load Balancing Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [load balancing] Two Load Balancing Markets

I think 4 hour support is less relevant on products that are usually
installed in redundant pairs with stateful failover. I'm only happy to
pay the premium for it on items (6500 chassis etc) that can't be easily
replicated (or are too big to easily keep spares for).

Simon

-----Original Message-----
From: lb-l-bounces@vegan.net [mailto:lb-l-bounces@vegan.net] On Behalf
Of Seth Kusiak
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 11:20 AM
To: Load Balancing Mailing List
Subject: Re: [load balancing] Two Load Balancing Markets

Sometimes I wonder if F5 should be considered a premium enterprise
vendor.
We have F5's and they're great - they technically do what we need and
more.
My issue with them being considered a premium enterprise vendor is that
they don't offer 4 hour hardware replacements. For the premium
enterprise market, this is unacceptable. Heck, even my T3 DSU hardware
vendor has 4 hour hardware replacement and they're nowhere near as big
as F5.

It would be nice if anyone from F5 can comment if they plan to offer 4
hour replacements anytime soon.

Seth

-----Original Message-----
From: lb-l-bounces@vegan.net [mailto:lb-l-bounces@vegan.net] On Behalf
Of Tony Bourke
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 1:58 PM
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

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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 Tue May 22 10:43:31 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 22 2007 - 10:43:31 EDT