I've worked w/ Netscalers in the past, and been very happy. Unfortunately, we've got a need for a large amount of SSL traffic and the cost for F5 & Netscaler is likely out of our budget.
We're going to eval the units, and will make sure to test the failover heavily. They do include the CLI & SNMP with the units we're looking at. Matthew Barr [email protected] c: (646) 727-0535 On Feb 7, 2013, at 11:20 AM, Justin Ellison <[email protected]> wrote: > We used them as well for a few years. Morgan is spot-on. > > We did have some outages caused by them -- the sync process used for failover > would fail, and then we'd end up with split brain conditions where one would > die and the other wouldn't become the primary. If you look in their forums, > their primary niche market is Windows admins that don't know too much about > networking. In other words, customers who just want a black box. > > We also upgraded to F5's, and are very happy with the result. Comparing the > two is like comparing a Kia to a BMW, both in features and in cost. > > If HAProxy was then where it is now, I would have used HAProxy instead. We > actually use HAProxy for some internal stuff, and it's a pleasure to work > with. F5 gets away with charging what they do, because they truly are the > best at doing it. > > All in all, I'd say we got our money's worth out of them, but I'd take a > different route if I were to do it again today.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
