Re: Re : Layer4 and Layer7 TPS

F5 was great until you tried pushing more than 25% of its listed maximum throughput, or tried to push  3k req/s worth of 1GB+ file size downloads through it, then it would fall on its face.

 

Feel free to search this list for my explanation of why we left F5’s product.  I’ve posted it before.

 

The only LB solution we have ever found that suited our needs was Zeus ZXTM, this is for 3-5k req/s worth of traffic pushing 2+Gbps through it.

 

Cheers,

Zak Thompson

CEO

Yellow Fiber Networks <http://www.yellowfiber.net/> 

O: 703-763-7001

C: 703-209-5706

F: 703-763-7000

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kenneth Salchow
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 10:42 AM
To: Load Balancing Mailing List
Subject: Re: [load balancing] Re : Layer4 and Layer7 TPS

 

@ADC Expert – No offense intended, I just try to run a tight ship from F5’s perspective and keep the propaganda to a minimum.  Since you’re a potential customer—have at it.  J  I’m glad you found the report useful, we did spend considerable time (and investment in test gear).

 

@Surya – again, you’re spot on with the end results.  As I mentioned, it’s how it performs in the customer network with the customer application AND WITH THE CUSTOMER’S BUSINESS PROCESS.  That’s what you were getting at, I think.  In the end, even the best devices with the best performance with the most features that don’t work well with the business need (management, maintenance, cost, etc.) won’t be selected.

 

I know when I was a customer (too long ago for me to admit) I actually had an virtually unlimited budget and no existing network/process to conform with.  At that time, performance and features really were our deciding factor; but very few people ever have that “clean slate” to work with, so all those other things become increasingly important.  

 

Great discussion folks—every now and then I think it’s healthy to rehash some of these conversations for the newer people.

 

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 <http://www.f5.com/> 

 

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Surya ARBY
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 12:45 AM
To: Load Balancing Mailing List
Subject: Re: [load balancing] Re : Layer4 and Layer7 TPS

 

Hello.

I said in my previous email that this kind of results are "a bunch of bullshit". In fact the point that makes me angry is the "race for performance" all vendors are currently running :)

I could find this also http://deliver.citrix.com/go/citrix/TollyReport another performance report where citrix beats F5 (the opposite of the one you get :) )


All products from the leaders on the market scale well and will continue to scale. Just take a look to this (just an example, I'm not a brocade employee) http://www.brocade.com/products-solutions/products/ethernet-switches-routers/application-delivery/product-details/serveriron-adx-series/specifications.page

Most vendors now rely on the same architecture :

- Build a single L4-L7 Processing Unit (multi core, multi cpu, multi fpga, multi blahblah...)
- Add 8, 16 , 32 or 64 PUs in your box
- Use a hash function to distribute the flows accross all the processing units to distribute the load.

Your product will scale indefinitely, and if you use a crossbar to connect all the elements, your architecture can be non blocking.

According to this paradigm, most vendors now support multi-10GE effective throughput (just look to the link I sent, Brocade claims to support 70GE sustained rate) with a lot of hundreds of thousands TPS.

Just to check the values claimed by the vendor you test, you can rent some Avalanche and Reflector stuff from Spirent communications with your configuration.

When I have some requests from customers, usually the vendor is not chosen based on the claimed performance or features but on other points : management, reporting, pricing, ease of maintenance...

Surya

--- En date de : Ven 20.11.09, ADC expert <[email protected]> a écrit :


De: ADC expert <[email protected]>
Objet: Re: [load balancing] Re : Layer4 and Layer7 TPS
À: "Load Balancing Mailing List" <[email protected]>
Date: Vendredi 20 Novembre 2009, 6h56

@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 <http://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

 


-----La pièce jointe associée suit-----

_______________________________________________
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