to get
> blown
> > away, see the results here:
> >
> > F5 - Peaked 160k completed transactions a minute sustained for 10
> minutes,
> > 0 errors, 112ms average transaction response time
> > A10 - Held 60k completed transactions a minute sustained for 10 minutes,
> 0
> > errors, 360ms average transaction response time
> >
> > If anyone is interested in the graphs I think I can still pull them out
> of
> > gomez. Though notable that this was all done a year ago, so things might
> be
> > different now.
> >
> > ~J
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Welch, Bryan [mailto:bryan.we...@arrisi.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 8:35 PM
> > To: nanog@nanog.org
> > Subject: Experiences with A10 AX series Load Balancers?
> >
> > Does anyone have any experiences good/bad/indifferent with this company
> and
> > their products? They claim 2x the performance at ? the cost and am a bit
> > leery as you can imagine.
> >
> > We are looking to replace our aging F5 BigIP LTM's and will be evaluating
> > these along with the Netscaler and new generation F5 boxes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Bryan
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> -- Darren Bolding --
> -- dar...@bolding.org --
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:50:42 -0700
> From: "Welch, Bryan"
> Subject: RE: Experiences with A10 AX series Load Balancers?
> To: Darren Bolding , Justin Horstman
>
> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org"
> Message-ID:
><
> dfa5aecdec85ee4087d45c463c19b3751341839...@kwaexmail1.arrs.arrisi.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Yes, agreed. I think the Netscaler falls into the category of the Cisco in
> this respect . Seems the F5 gear is the 1000lb gorilla in this
> category and for the most part we have no reason to look anywhere else other
> than doing our own due diligence with respect to the other vendor offerings
> in this space.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Bryan
>
> From: packetmon...@gmail.com [mailto:packetmon...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Darren Bolding
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 6:46 PM
> To: Justin Horstman
> Cc: Welch, Bryan; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Experiences with A10 AX series Load Balancers?
>
> Very interesting to see about A10's performance- I've heard mixed things
> about them.
>
> Just an FYI, the newer F5 platforms don't utilize the ASIC's- the
> performance curve of general-purpose CPU's has once again eclipsed what can
> be done with specialized silicon without aggressive (and expensive) revision
> cycles. The ASIC's also could only be used in simpler virtual server
> configurations and with certain subsets of iRules.
>
> That said, nothing else I'm aware of provides the functionality of iRules.
> I've used netscalers only a relatively small amount- and they are nice-
> particularly if your requirements are within their feature set- but my
> experience has been that things I take for granted using an iRule are
> seriously painful to implement on a netscaler.
>
> --D
>
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Justin Horstman <
> jhorst...@adknowledge.com<mailto:jhorst...@adknowledge.com>> wrote:
> The boxes do alright at low load levels. They do not have an asic tech like
> the F5s so choke on large amounts of traffic. Management is a bit immature
> and you will find yourself having to use the CLI and the Gui to accomplish
> most advanced tasks.
>
> When we put them head to head A10 AX3200 vs F5 6400 ltm (note: 6400 was
> what we were looking to replace)
>
> Test:
> 1000 concurrent users from Gomez's Networks Loadtesting platform hitting as
> fast as the requests would close, going through our standard vip config on
> the f5, and the A10 engineering teams 3 best efforts to beat that config
> that balanced between two Identical Dell 1950 servers serving a php page
> that responded with a random number (to avoid caching). The 6400 we used was
> in production at the time, and was older so we were expecting to get blown
> away, see the results here:
>
> F5 - Peaked 160k completed transactions a minute sustained for 10 minutes,
> 0 errors, 112ms average transaction response time
> A10 - Held 60k completed transactions a minute sustained for 10 minutes, 0
> errors, 360ms average transaction response time
>
> If anyone is interested in the graphs I think I can still pull them out of
> gomez. Though notable that this was all done a year ago, s
