Re: [load balancing] Two Load Balancing Markets

F5 switching vendor? I thought they have a running PC with some
switching added to it, but mainly PC with hard drive etc.

I would consider two others that would meet your need (Citrix and Radware).

Chuck Adkins wrote:
> 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
Received on Fri May 25 07:56:01 2007