Re: Re : Layer4 and Layer7 TPS

@Kenneth, I am not F5 employee.

I am validating the existing ADC products for L4-L7 TPS. I really appreciate
F5 publishing their results.

Coming to the discussion, I believe and agree that hardware plays its role
to show up better performance. The recent press release from Radware claims
340K TPS for its Alteon on their On demand hardware. Compared to what Alteon
3408 used to have, its a tremendous improvement. That proves software plays
its role in performance.  At the same time, it confuses when I see
performance results of one ADC vendor to be L7 -300K TPS that claims to have
hardware excellence.

Thanks,


On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:41 AM, Kenneth Salchow <[email protected]> wrote:

>  While I might not be quite so exuberant in my response, I will suggest
> the Surya has a couple valid points.
>
>
>
> First, however, let me say that, to the best of my knowledge, that post was
> NOT made by an F5 employee.  If it is discovered that it was, it was
> inappropriate and it will be rectified.  IF, however, it truly is simply one
> of our customers who found some value in our testing, I’m happy to see their
> excitement and enthusiasm.  I, personally, believe we do a pretty fair job
> of presenting the facts; we publish the results regardless of whether we
> come out on top or not and we provide complete transparency as to the
> configurations of all devices, testing equipment and methodology.  Given the
> report, the time and the equipment, anyone should be able to produce the
> same results.  I truly believe it is as unbiased as it can be.
>
>
>
> That being said, I agree with Surya the no matter how unbiased a
> performance report may or may not be, the true test is how the device
> performs in YOUR environment with YOUR applications and YOUR business
> processes.  As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting; make
> sure you get a true taste.  If possible, a PoC is something we suggest all
> our prospective customers do.  Anyone who has been a part of this list for
> any time knows that I am a strong proponent of that philosophy.  In the end,
> that’s all that matters.
>
>
>
> I wish the ADC Expert good luck (Bon Chance, I believe?) in their search
> for the best product for their needs.  If you have any specific questions,
> I’m sure everyone in the list will be happy to give their perspective and
> input.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf
> Of *Surya ARBY
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 19, 2009 12:43 PM
> *To:* Load Balancing Mailing List
> *Subject:* [load balancing] Re : Layer4 and Layer7 TPS
>
>
>
> Hello.
>
> To me this kind of "performance reports" or "competitive analysis" are just
> a bunch of bullshit.
>
> You'll find a lot of other papers on Citrix / Cisco / any vendor web site
> with a lot of case studies stating they are the best vendor with the best
> appliance and that the end customer is the happiest customer in the world
> with his solution :)
>
> Make a POC and setup your own load testing :)
>
> The real L4/L7 performance in a specific configuration varies according to
> the internal architecture of the product you test. Cisco ACE module
> distributes the load between two NPs according to the result of a hash
> function to process load balanced flows, Ace appliance relies on a single
> Cavium Octeon chipset for the data plane, Citrix uses a purely software
> based appliance, F5 and Foundry use another architectures (barrel processors
> in foundry boxes are distributed like NPs in cisco ace module)...
>
> When you perform load testing it's very important to understand how the box
> you test really works internally, because results (and comparison) will
> change with the choosen scenario that's why the "performance report" you
> mention is necessarily biaised :)
>
> regards,
>
> Surya
>
> --- En date de : *Jeu 19.11.09, ADC expert <[email protected]>* a écrit :
>
>
> De: ADC expert <[email protected]>
> Objet: [load balancing] Layer4 and Layer7 TPS
> À: [email protected]
> Date: Jeudi 19 Novembre 2009, 19h09
>
> Hi Experts,
>    I was looking for a  ADC device that can give best L4 and L7 TPS. After
> considerable search, I got few things to get clarified before selecting the
> best.
>    F5 has extensive performance report in its website.
>    http://www.f5.com/pdf/reports/f5-performance-report.pdf
>    I wonder why other vendors did not report in such detail. Even if, there
> is  no free access.
>    I appreciate if some one sends me across cisco, citrix and other vendors
> performance details.
>
>   -Thanks.
>
>
>
> -----La pièce jointe associée suit-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> lb-l mailing list
> [email protected] <http://mc/[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