L/B devices for the most basic services (ie, POP, SMTP, DNS, FTP) is
acceptable in an integrated switch. However, due to the more sophisticated
requirements of HTTP and SSL load balancing - a dedicated device is in
order. That way the development can be focused and we don't loose features
due to compromise.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tony bourke [mailto:tonyIZZATvegan.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 7:48 AM
> To: lb-lIZZATvegan.net
> Subject: [load balancing] keeping load balancers seperate
> Hi All,
> As load balancers are continuously being integrated into
> larger Layer 2/3
> switches, what do y'all think about that? Would you want a
> Cisco Cat 6500
> to do all of your Layer 2-7 needs? Do you want to keep your load
> balancers seperate?
> I'm leaning towards keeping the load balancers seperate.
> Load balancers,
> at least for now, are more unstable generally than Layer 2/3
> switches. If
> it's just a Layer 2 switch, you might never need to upgrade
> code or power
> cycle it. Load balancers, on the other hand, often require
> continous code
> upgrades to address one issue or another. You might never
> power cycle a
> switch, but you'll power cycle a load balancer as often as
> once a week (or
> more, I've seen)
> Keeping load balancers seperate, even the switch-based load balancers,
> also make it possible to put them in the Layer 3 path, instead of the
> Layer 2 path, which simplifies redundancy and allows for greater
> I often employ ArrowPoints or Alteons for load balancing.
> While they are
> switches, I usually employ them as appliances, using only one or two
> ports, depending on the configuration.
> What do you all think? Talk amongst yourselves!
> -------------- -- ---- ---- --- - - - - - -- - - - - - -
> Tony Bourke tonyIZZATvegan.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Nov 05 2000 - 15:09:07 EST