Re: load balancer models and performance
Tal Klein <[email protected]> Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:39:29 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.programming.load-balancing.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <B1DF26ECC0458748AC97CECE2DA98D412F4532BD64@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> |
Actually Ed, I'd like to offer a counterpoint to "At the end of the day, the hardware is a commodity and a small part of the cost of delivering the appliance" -- We actually have lots good reasons for different hardware platforms which have to do with all the extra stuff we throw into our hardware platforms (processors, ram, asics, ports, etc.), but there is also an important customer consideration here: The power+cooling costs which some of our customers are very sensitive to. For example, some of our larger internet customers determine what device they purchase based on a BTU per rack calculation, so sometimes that means having to make a compromise between throughput and power+cooling requirements. This means that although in theory they could have one device that handles multiple racks' worth of bandwidth, sometimes it makes more sense for them to have a dedicated lower end device per rack. Food for thought :) -Tal --- Tal M. Klein Integrated Product Strategy Citrix Systems, Inc. ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Toro [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 9:05 AM To: Load Balancing Mailing List Subject: Re: [load balancing] load balancer models and performance My apologies for suggesting F5 capped raw throughput. I was probably thinking of compression and SSL. I'm not sure if Cisco or NetScaler do this. If not, I bet they are looking at it. At the end of the day, the hardware is a commodity and a small part of the cost of delivering the appliance. It makes more sense to sell the customer a big appliance they can upgrade performance on easily for more revenue down the road. If they have to rip out a physical appliance then they are less likely to exert the effort. It also opens the door to other vendors if they have to do a physical replacement. Kirk Bauer wrote: > 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). > _______________________________________________ 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