I think the other item to keep in mind when discussing F5 is that
V4.x and V9.x are extremely different animals. We are currently
running 9.x on the 3400 and 1500 platforms and have been very happy
with their effectiveness across different applications such as email
protocols to ldap, etc.
I am curious as to your concern that F5 is not listed at interop this
year. They were there in past years and think that it might be more
of a reflection on what Interop has turned into than a knock on F5s
position in the market.
What vendors do you believe are better positioned in the advanced
application delivery market and due to which benefits and/or features.
-- Josh Gluck Assistant Director, Network & Communications Services Information Technologies & Services Department Weill Medical College of Cornell University On May 22, 2007, at 11:20 AM, john wilson wrote: > Tony > > Gartner has created the other quadrant that you have mentioned. > > One thing I have noticed tho, is that citrix/netscaler and F5 are OLD > technologies. It will be extremely difficult for them to go from > high end > load balances into the advanced application delivery market. > > I was just on the interop site and don’t see F5 or Citrix listed > http://www.bestofinterop.com/ > > > > John A. Wilson > Senior Systems Engineer > 1115 Berkley Rd. > Lake Zurich, IL. 60047 > > Office: 847-438-4927 > Fax: 847-438-4945 > > > > > Disclaimer - This email and any files transmitted with it are > confidential > and contain privileged or copyright information. You must not > present this > message to another party without gaining permission from the > sender. If you > are not the intended recipient you must not copy, distribute or use > this > email or the information contained in it for any purpose other than to > notify us. > > If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender > immediately, and delete this email from your system. > > -----Original Message----- > From: lb-l-bounces@vegan.net [mailto:lb-l-bounces@vegan.net] On > Behalf Of > lb-l-request@vegan.net > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 9:02 AM > To: lb-l@vegan.net > Subject: lb-l Digest, Vol 5, Issue 18 > > Send lb-l mailing list submissions to > lb-l@vegan.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > lb-l-request@vegan.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > lb-l-owner@vegan.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of lb-l digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Two Load Balancing Markets (Tony Bourke) > 2. Re: Two Load Balancing Markets (Seth Kusiak) > 3. Re: Two Load Balancing Markets (William Snow) > 4. Re: Two Load Balancing Markets (Simon Hamilton-Wilkes) > 5. Re: Two Load Balancing Markets (Shawn Nunley) > 6. Re: Two Load Balancing Markets (Chuck Adkins) > 7. Re: Two Load Balancing Markets (Leif B Rasmussen) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 13:57:50 -0400 > From: Tony Bourke <tony@vegan.net> > Subject: [load balancing] Two Load Balancing Markets > To: Load Balancing Mailing List <lb-l@vegan.net> > Message-ID: <4651DD9E.9090901@vegan.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > 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 > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 14:20:20 -0400 > From: "Seth Kusiak" <SKusiak@asicentral.com> > Subject: Re: [load balancing] Two Load Balancing Markets > To: "Load Balancing Mailing List" <lb-l@vegan.net> > Message-ID: > <135D53C570F9A24E8EDD2FFD31F759C0154D9B@asi-mbx-03.asicentral.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > 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 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 12:02:49 -0700 > From: William Snow <Will.Snow@Sun.COM> > Subject: Re: [load balancing] Two Load Balancing Markets > To: Load Balancing Mailing List <lb-l@vegan.net> > Message-ID: <4651ECD9.3040902@sun.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I'm finding this to be true as well. I use alteon (nortel) 2424's > for my > primary sites, > but I have an experimental rack of servers where I need something > lightweight, easy to manage > and cheap. I've deployed a webmux for the rack, but it's so far > proving > to be less than ideal. > The difference between the two feature sets is huge, but I'm not sure > that we need all the > features of the alteon. It's a crying shame Nortel can't release a new > version of the 2424 - heck, > even the webmux supports higher speeds than the current 2424. > > One of the biggest problems with the webmux is the documentation is > terrible. There's lots of it > but it's really quite poor. > > --w > > > Tony Bourke wrote: >> 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 >> > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 11:54:32 -0700 > From: "Simon Hamilton-Wilkes" <sjhwilkes@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [load balancing] Two Load Balancing Markets > To: "'Load Balancing Mailing List'" <lb-l@vegan.net> > Message-ID: <001b01c79bd9$79534fa0$71c4a8c0@shamiltont60p> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > 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 $100K on a > load > balancer, and a bank isn't likely to try and save some money by > going with a > budget box when the difference would represent > even less than a rounding error on their IT budget. There may be > some > crossover in some edge cases, but from what I've seen they are > increasingly > developing on separate evolutionary tracts. > > Agree? Disagree? > > Tony > > > > _______________________________________________ > lb-l mailing list > lb-l@vegan.net > http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l > Searchable Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive http://lbdigest.com > Load > Balancing Digest > > _______________________________________________ > lb-l mailing list > lb-l@vegan.net > http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l > Searchable Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive http://lbdigest.com > Load > Balancing Digest > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 13:50:36 -0700 > From: "Shawn Nunley" <nunley@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [load balancing] Two Load Balancing Markets > To: "'Load Balancing Mailing List'" <lb-l@vegan.net> > Message-ID: <004401c79be9$b0f21990$12d64cb0$@com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > 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 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 17:18:13 -0400 > From: "Chuck Adkins" <chuck.adkins@theice.com> > Subject: Re: [load balancing] Two Load Balancing Markets > To: "Load Balancing Mailing List" <lb-l@vegan.net> > Message-ID: > <3730EE4DC9AB6B4A924B57DC72F27EEA07EEDFD8@rv-bp-ixmx-03-bak> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > 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. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 09:02:02 -0500 > From: "Leif B Rasmussen" <leifbr@cox.net> > Subject: Re: [load balancing] Two Load Balancing Markets > To: "'Load Balancing Mailing List'" <lb-l@vegan.net> > Message-ID: <000601c79c79$c5ae9f80$1200000a@olympus.f5net.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > 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 > > > End of lb-l Digest, Vol 5, Issue 18 > *********************************** > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 DigestReceived on Tue May 22 11:32:28 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 22 2007 - 11:32:29 EDT