|
Yeah, but the problem is for bosses is that these are all Linux companies,
so they say, oh, well, these are all Linux companies, of course they use
the Linux solution cause its their market and since a boss or market
person thinks that companies make all their decisions like they do, based
on market, how it looks and not off of any relevant information, the
technical reasons get lost somewhere.
Plus they need numbers. You could tell a boss or a marketing guy anything
and if you don't have a chart, they don't care.
Is there any comparison stats against bigIP, Cisco, etc with LVS?
I just want to know how relevant the 2.4 tcp stack argument is. It just
sounded like a stab in the dark to me.
-jeremy
>
> in response to the whole testing deal, redhat supports lvs. valinux
> supports lvs. turbolinux's clustering is based largely around lvs code, i
> believe. horms' all-in-one webserver farm "ultramonkey" project utilizes
> lvs. valinux claimed handling 50,000 connections per second with a 16
> machine farm at the linuxworld expo, if i recall correctly.
>
> i could probably dig up some other old emails to the list regarding good
> performance, but jam on.
>
> -tcl.
>
>
> > I want to use LVS for a load balancer for the obvious reasons and I
> > received two emails from the higher ups, first:
> >
> > Load Balancing under Linux is still in development or hasn't been tested.
> > We do have 2 Cisco Local Directors (to provide redundancy) in NY that we
> > can ship to Silicon Valley. Those can be used as load balancers. It will
> > take about 4 days to configure the local Director with the latest version
> > and ship them.
> >
> > I disputed this of course, having used LVS for a while now, I consider it
> > to be one of the more stable projects, plus the fact that I really don't
> > know where he's getting this from. It hasn't been tested? Uh, by who, so
> > I was just confused in general by this.
>
http://www.xxedgexx.com | jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
---------------------------------------------
|
