Re: load balancer models and performance

Yeah--I'd just add that I think Ed may have had that backwards completely.
F5 doesn't currently, nor have we ever that I recollect, license base
throughput; we do license SSL and Compression, but unlike in the past, I
believe that it is now (with the new platforms) either the free stuff you
get with the platform or full-on, there is no longer tiered pricing for that
either.  We are addressing the 'growth without upgrade' using our blade
technology which allows you to add real resources when you need them.

I can't remember if Citrix did the software throttling (I think they did)
but I KNOW that Cisco did licensed throughput on the 4710 platform--can't
remember on others.  As Ed stated, I think there are pros and cons to either
method and it all comes back to what works for you and/or your organization.
Some people like that, others don't.

KJ (Ken) Salchow, Jr. | Manager, Technical Marketing
D 651.423.1133
M 612.868.1258
P 206.272.5555
F 206.272.5555
www.f5.com



-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Kirk Bauer
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:08 AM
To: Load Balancing Mailing List
Subject: Re: [load balancing] load balancer models and performance

I'm not sure if this has always been the case or not, but currently F5 does
not limit the throughput of the system based on licensing.  Any BIG-IP can
push as much as the hardware allows.

The only two items where performance is limited by license on a BIG-IP is
total compressed throughput (you get 50Mbps and can unlock more) and SSL
transactions per second (you get 500 and can unlock more).

Other than that, I can agree with everything in Ed's email.

Again, I am not an official F5 spokesperson, these are just my own opinions.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed
Toro
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 7:36 AM
To: Load Balancing Mailing List
Subject: Re: [load balancing] load balancer models and performance

First of all, everyone publishes specs that are under "ideal" 
conditions. It's like an automobile manufacturer posting performance 
numbers after they rip out everything that doesn't make the car actually 
move. Assume that you will get 50%-70% of the posted numbers. If you 
start using a lot of features then that percentage may be even less.

The bottom line is that you must do full testing of all features with 
full load in your environment before you will truly now how well the 
solution will fit. Don't assume anything and do not believe any 
marketing literature.

As for F5, I think they might have license based activation to unlock 
higher performance which is why you might be seeing different numbers. I 
don't think NetScaler and Cisco do this. There are good and bad aspects 
to this practice. It's a nice way to get what you want and accommodate 
growth without replacing hardware, however be aware of upgrade pricing. 
Some people will call this a "crippling" of hardware so it sort of 
becomes a religious argument.

Be careful that the hardware you evaluate is licensed and configured 
EXACTLY like the ones that are being priced. Some vendors will bring in 
hardware that is licensed for full speed but only give you pricing for 
lower speed in order to win the bid. It's a dirty trick.

Read the message history of this mailing list. A lot of good information 
has been given on load balancer testing methodology and recommendations 
on how to deal with vendors.




Andrejus Baranovskis wrote:
>
> Hello list,
>
>  
>
> Looking at load balancer options to purchase for our medium sized 
> company. We've been looking at F5, Netscaler and  Cisco.
>
>  
>
> We were looking for a capacity of 1-2 Gbps SSL/load balance. We got a 
> little confused with F5 models.  1600 series was out of question as 
> it's datasheet used to say 750 Mbps and we were looking at 3600 or 6900.
>
>  
>
> However there are new datasheets now which say 1600 is 1 Gbps a nd 
> 3600 is 2 Gbps (used to be 1.5 Gbps). Naturally we are confused. Does 
> anyone have clear numbers for this? Why did the specs change all of a 
> sudden? any change on the CPU/HW? As far as I know these are new 
> models which came out very recently and there is no recent major 
> software release in the devcentral to justify the improvements in the 
> datasheets.
>
>  
>
> Thoughts/opinions? If anyone has field performance experience with 
> these models it will be very valuable for us, we don't have much time 
> to test every vendor and each model.
>  
> Andre
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> lb-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l
> Searchable Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive
> http://lbdigest.com Load Balancing Digest
> http://lbwiki.com Load Balancing Wiki
>   

_______________________________________________
lb-l mailing list
[email protected]
http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l
Searchable Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive
http://lbdigest.com Load Balancing Digest
http://lbwiki.com Load Balancing Wiki
_______________________________________________
lb-l mailing list
[email protected]
http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l
Searchable Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive
http://lbdigest.com Load Balancing Digest
http://lbwiki.com Load Balancing Wiki

_______________________________________________
lb-l mailing list
[email protected]
http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l
Searchable Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive
http://lbdigest.com Load Balancing Digest
http://lbwiki.com Load Balancing Wiki