Re: lb-l Digest, Vol 31, Issue 16

I recently installed my first LinkController and found it to be very easy. I downloaded the Config Guide and was up and running. Granted, setting them up in HA mode requires a bit more thought, I still enjoyed it much more than my first Radware Linkproof install.

I certainly find the F5 GUI more responsive than the Radware one. The help menus are actually helpful too, rather than extremely vague. Having used both the linkproof and LinkController extensively, there's no way I'd consider the Linkproof to be easier to install or maintain. Of course, I've only ever used 9.4 and 10.x on the LinkController and 4.37 and below on the LinkProof.

Nicholas,

What did you find more difficult about the LC?

Chris Miller


________________________________
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tony Hosseiny
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 6:03 PM
To: Load Balancing Mailing List
Subject: Re: [load balancing] lb-l Digest, Vol 31, Issue 16

Well, given the fact that these multihoming products have been around for almost a decade, one would expect that management and installation should be a breeze especially for network ops.  At the end of the day, that is a huge differentiator.  One of the most promising aspect of such products (linkproof of RDWR or LinkController of F5) is avoiding those "Static configurations" of BGP.  you would expect that over time you will be mandated to change provider hence, new configuration.  That alone is a major criterion, if F5 is hard to install then it would be cumbersome and erroneous to re-configure  in contrast, the linkproof is really intuitive, easy to install and MAINTAIN.

Tony H.

________________________________
From: Nicholas Zurfluh <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 10:46:10 PM
Subject: Re: [load balancing] lb-l Digest, Vol 31, Issue 16

F5 Link Controller is a excellent product and works very well given your client requirements.

There is one caveat, the install is really difficult. I normally quote 1 week and that is typical for most implementations. You will need a well referenced installer who has proven, successful, Link Controller installs. You may attempt to perform the installation on your own but unless you have assistance from either F5 development or someone else who has done it before you will fail to install the product.

Someday, I will publish a document online that is an end-to-end  how to guide on Link Controller but until I have the spare time to complete that manual your only option is to hire a reputalble installer/consultant.

Once the Link Controller is installed the product works well and is easy to maintain. I will add that it is my favorite product from F5 and I think its the best on the market bar none.

Full disclosure, I do not sell product and I am in no way affiliated with F5 or any other load balancing manufacturer.


--
Nicholas Zurfluh
Certified F5 Product Consultant
www.z2technologies.com<http://www.z2technologies.com>
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
(972) 897-5326


On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:00 AM, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Send lb-l mailing list submissions to
       [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
       http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
       [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

You can reach the person managing the list at
       [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of lb-l digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. Re: Suggestions for Link load balancer (Tony Bourke)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:33:34 -0700
From: Tony Bourke <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [load balancing] Suggestions for Link load balancer
To: Load Balancing Mailing List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Message-ID: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Like the load balancer/ADC market, there's an enterprise market
(Radware/F5) and an SMB market for link load balancers (although I'm not
as familiar with it as I am the LB/ADC market).

There are a couple of companies that specialize in SMB markets and might
have a lower price point.  14 Mbps would be considered in that SMB range
for most installations, I believe.

Ecessa is one company. I did a review of their product here not long ago:
http://lbdigest.com/2009/04/28/review-ecessa-shieldlink-100/

There's also Elfiq and Barracuda that offer LLB that I'm aware of, but I
haven't used them (I'd be happy to do a review of any SMB-oriented LLB).

Tony



Chris Miller wrote:
> What are you basing Radware being the leader on? The fact that this is a relatively small deployment as far as Throughput requirements?
>
> I'm a fan of F5's LinkController but have also used Radware's LinkProof. I'm not sure what the pricing is on an LP Branch but if you don't see the bandwidth requirements ever increasing, it might not be a bad solution.
>
> What's your budget here? The requirements right now are only for load balancing 14Mbps, will this increase during the life of the device?
>
>
> Chris Miller
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Ed Toro
> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 8:27 AM
> To: Load Balancing Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [load balancing] Suggestions for Link load balancer
>
> I believe that many devices can do this to some extent but radware is the leader in this category.
>
> Sujith wrote:
>
>> Hello All,
>> Thank you for your valuable suggestions and time.
>>
>> We would like to propose to our client, a link load balancer which is
>> capable of handling 3 internet links. The client is having a 8Mb/s,
>> 2Mb/s and 4Mb/s solution.
>>
>> Can you please suggest which one is the right product to go with?
>>
>> Also Can you please list out the advantage and disadvantage you feel
>> with the solution that you are suggesting?
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Sujith
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lb-l mailing list
>> [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>
> http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l
> Searchable Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive
> http://lbdigest.com<http://lbdigest.com/> Load Balancing Digest
> http://lbwiki.com<http://lbwiki.com/> Load Balancing Wiki
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lb-l mailing list
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l
> Searchable Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive
> http://lbdigest.com<http://lbdigest.com/> Load Balancing Digest
> http://lbwiki.com<http://lbwiki.com/> Load Balancing Wiki
>



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
lb-l mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l


End of lb-l Digest, Vol 31, Issue 16
************************************

_______________________________________________
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