|
Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 03:48:14PM -0400, Matthew S. Crocker wrote:
> > DR is faster, less resource intensive but has issues with configuration
> > because of the age old 'arp problem'
>
> This is true but LVS-NAT is still fast enough for many aplications and
> is IMHO considerably easier to set up. While I think LVS-DR is great
> I don't think people should be under the impresion that LVS-NAT
> will intrisicly be a limiting factor to them.
>
> --
> Horms
True, and Cisco, Alteon and F5 solutions are all NAT based. The real limiting
factor as I understand it is the capacity of the netcard, which these three
deal with by using gigabit interfaces.
-=dwh=-
________________________________________________________________
http://www.OpenRecording.com For musicians by musicians.
Now with free Web-Based email too!
|
