Re: [load balancing] Two Load Balancing Markets

From: Dave Wiley <dvwiley [izzat] sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mon May 28 2007 - 12:14:22 EDT

F5 does offers 4 hour onsite support. F5 also offers redundant power
supplies in their enterprise platforms ( 41XX, 43XX, 6400, 6800, 8400 ) but
not in their lower-end units ( 12XX, 1500, 3400 ). The entry level product
has a list price of $17K so a redundant deployment would be $34K list. For
that price it includes 5 Mb/s of HTTP compression, 100 TPS of SSL, and a max
500 Mb/s of throughput. Plus TMOS, iRules, yada yada yada...

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: lb-l-bounces@vegan.net [mailto:lb-l-bounces@vegan.net] On Behalf Of
Mischa Peters
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:40 AM
To: Load Balancing Mailing List
Subject: Re: [load balancing] Two Load Balancing Markets

Personally I would go for Foundry or if it's absolutely necessary Cisco.

Mischa

> 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

_______________________________________________
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 28 12:15:42 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 28 2007 - 12:15:43 EDT