On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 05:53:57PM -0700, Michael O'Keefe ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
We were using IPVS in the development of one of our products, and then the poweres that be (ie. clueless Linux-types) decided to go with Cisco's CSS - at $50k per and we need TON's of them...what a bunch of lame-O's !
I hate clueless Linux-types! I've been told by some of those guys that you're better off running cisco routers than Linux routers in anything more than a home router.
Cisco's CSS looks beefy -- "A five-rack unit, six-slot Cisco CSS 11506 (40-Gbps aggregate throughput)"
Hmm, I'd sooner let them spend their money on Cisco that be responsible for a 40 Gbps HA cluster.
Maybe if you *NEED* a 40Gbps cluster !
But if you need just a load balancer for a handful of machines, with a throughput of a few Mbps, where would you spend the money ?
Shit, we ran IPVS in front of 1Gbps in a lab environment.
You've gotta spend a SHITLOAD of $$ on bandwidth to get that in the realworld !
And then there's CSS only doing DNAT rather than direct routing, so the CSS is involved in the reverse path as well, whereas IPVS is not required for the reverse path, which is where (under MOST conditions, all the B/W is)
-- Michael O'Keefe | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Live on and Ride a 03 BMW F650GSDakar| [EMAIL PROTECTED] / | I like less more or less less than |Work:+1 858 845 3514 / | more. UNIX-live it,love it,fork() it |Fax :+1 858 845 2652 /_p_| My views are MINE ALONE, blah, blah, |Home:+1 760 788 1296 \`O'| blah, yackety yack - don't come back |Fax :+1 858 _/_\|_,
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
