Re: [load balancing] Cisco CSS vs F5 BigIP

From: James Costello (jcostelloIZZATTallgrassTech.com)
Date: Mon Jun 09 2003 - 12:58:08 EDT

  • Next message: Paul Sharpe: "[load balancing] ServerIron + NAT == Can't Ping VIP"

    Yassin,
    Major reasons for seriously considering F5
    BIGIP is more flexible in what it can do, The new universal inspection engine delves furhter into packets to determine what action to take.
    F5 only does load balancing, this is what they are very good at.
    F5 support is outstanding and very responsive to feature requests.
    F5 is the industry leader in SSL load balancing.
    JC

    >>> MatanYIZZATfranklin.edu 06/06/03 02:53PM >>>
    Hi everyone, I need some opinions please.

    We currently have a web architecture that utilizes Cisco's CSS 11000
    and SCA. We are thinking of expanding this architecture in the near
    future to include more appliances. I would like to mention that we had
    our share of bugs in these appliances. We are exploring some
    alternatives in the load balancing arena. We heard F5 BigIP as an
    alternative route. Can someone give me some feed back about the
    differences between the two and why I should seriously consider F5.

    Your reply is greatly appreciated.

    You could email me straight with your opinion.

    Thanks in advance.

    Yassin
    ____________________
    The Load Balancing Mailing List
    Unsubscribe: mailto:majordomoIZZATvegan.net?body=unsubscribe%20lb-l
    Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive
    LBDigest: http://lbdigest.com
    MRTG with SLB: http://vegan.net/MRTG
    Hosted by: http://www.tokkisystems.com

    ____________________
    The Load Balancing Mailing List
    Unsubscribe: mailto:majordomoIZZATvegan.net?body=unsubscribe%20lb-l
    Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive
    LBDigest: http://lbdigest.com
    MRTG with SLB: http://vegan.net/MRTG
    Hosted by: http://www.tokkisystems.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 09 2003 - 13:05:01 EDT