mailing list archives
RE: Server Redundancy
From: "John Ferriby" <john () ferriby com>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:40:53 -0400
Rob Pickering said:
I've used both the route hack based and commercial NAT load
balancers, and they both have their place.
Yes, one size does not fit all.
Commercial NAT based load balancers are able to do things like
distribute requests according to actual measured server response
characteristics. This is great if you have clusters of servers with
different specs but want to extract the best performance under peak
load from the whole cluster. It also helps if you are running complex
services where individual servers can develop a pathological slow but
not failing response for some reason.
They are also able to do the kind of service polling as above and
react quicker to a down server than one which relies on routing
Quite true. A product not mentioned in previous posts would be the
Radware WSD, which has been great for my applications. See it at
www.radware.com These come in distrubted flavors too.
Also not mentioned previously would be the Netscaler, www.netscaler.com
If you are running complex web services (think expensive per server
sw licences etc) then the investment in a pair of redundant load
balancers for the front end to give more consistent performance under
load as well as resilience can look very sane indeed.
Oh, yes. They make a lot of sense in large streaming environments.
RE: Server Redundancy Don Mills (Aug 07)
- RE: Server Redundancy, (continued)