Alan Pope wrote: > Hi Mark, > > On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 11:00 +0100, Mark Harrison wrote: > >> Hardware load balancer tend to give the twin >> benefits of resilience and performance. >> >> > > ..and another single point of failure. :) > > Cheers, > > Al. Al,
Yeah - that's why I've (in the past) used a pair of them with heart-beating between them. Sadly, that MORE than doubles the cost, since the heartbeating functionality tends to be added-cost option. .... and before anyone says "Cost, Mark? Surely you could use an additional pair of multi-homed Ubuntu boxes with XXX package running between them for sticky load balancing", I know I could in principle.... but I also know that I've run Cisco (Arrowpoint) loadbalancers for literally YEARS with zero maintenance, and 100% reliability across quite big webhead clusters ... I have that level of confidence in Ubuntu server for running webheads and database clusters... but not for "network infrastructure boxes" (yet.) Others may have a different opinion, and if they're prepared to underwrite (with funds lodged in an escrow account) my company's loss of income were we to have any downtime because of an Ubuntu failure, I'm willing to read their support proposals :-) Mark -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
