|
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Jeremy Hansen wrote:
>
> It seems my company has decided to go with foundry serveriron's for their
> load balancing solution. Of course I'd like to use LVS, mainly because
> the feature set they outlined is nothing LVS can't do and LVS is around
> $10,000 less expensive.
>
> Can anyone give me any positive or negative feedback on the foundry boxes
> and possible good arguments against using such a solution.
1. Foundry behaves (in real-life) differently than described in the docs. The
real-servers may get saturated beacause of the bursts of "test
connections" generated by foundry. FTP behave deplorable with foundry.
2. My real-life experience with foundry showed that a PIII 800 Mhz running LVS
handles traffic better than foundry. In the day after the switch from foundry
to LVS traffic stabilized at 150% of the original traffic, and the quality
reporting garbage strted to indicate better response time (it still remains a
garbage software)
3. With Foundry we only had in HTTP logs the IP of the foundry (not those of
the real clients, like with LVS). However I'm not sure if it's foundry or our
admins to balme, but it seemed to be the foundry.
>
> I did look at the foundry feature set and it does seem to do a lot of
> really neat things, but I'm a linux bigot.
If I were to choose some black box as a load balancer I would chose CISCO
LocalDirector, but again $$$$ is not an endless resource. Features of foundry
look nice, but they only remain nice on paper.
Radu-Adrian Feurdean
mailto: raf@xxxxxxxx
-------------------------------------------------------------
Majority: The quantity that distinguishes a crime from a law.
|
