[lug] [O/T]Web Server Fault Tolerance Devices

[Alan Robertson]

Nate Duehr wrote:
> 
> Alteon
> Radware
> Cisco (LocalDirector)
> Arrowpoint
> BigIP/F5 Systems
> 
> ...etc etc etc... there are others...
> 
> If you're dead-set on a hardware solution (good idea I think), the
> Alteon's and Cisco's are top-notch, and the price tags match.  Alteon
> can handle Gig Ethernet without too much trouble.  F5 claims to, but I'm
> still skeptical of a PC architecture doing that on an overclocked PCI
> bus.  I have customers that use them, so I guess we'll find out.  Their
> early machines claimed 100Mb/s performance and couldn't really do more
> than 70 or so.  Some of that can be blamed on Ethernet and some on the
> box itself, but Alteons and LocalDirectors could push faster.


All these folks mainly use PCs in one form or another.  LVS has been tested
on modest hardware to run a 100mbit link full blast.  I've actually heard
horrible performance stories concerning LocalDirector.  I don't personally
have any data on this score though.

If you buy a pair of gigahertz PCs, and put top-notch NICs on them, I'd put
LVS (direct routing) up with any of them.  LVS and heartbeat are what
UltraMonkey is based on.

Linux is actually quite fast handling ethernet links and routing.  As
amusing anecdotal evidence, I have a 486/33 with crappy NICs running my NAT
and firewall at home, and it runs about 10% busy for a .5 mbit link.  If one
were to take the giant leap to extrapoloating this to a gigahertz athlon or
so, one can see it's probably in the right ball park for handling gigabit
networking.

Many people would find running a 100mbit link more than sufficient in
practice.

	-- Alan Robertson
	   alanr at suse.com

	-- Alan Robertson
	   alanr at suse.com