Comments on: Survey Results http://lbdigest.com/2008/01/14/survey-results/ Server Load Balancing Articles and News Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:24:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Shrawan Kumar Patel http://lbdigest.com/2008/01/14/survey-results/comment-page-1/#comment-1391 Shrawan Kumar Patel Sat, 04 Jun 2011 11:08:58 +0000 http://lbdigest.com/2008/01/14/survey-results/#comment-1391 This is where some guy named Shrawan Kumar Patel tried to spam my site. This is where some guy named Shrawan Kumar Patel tried to spam my site.

]]> By: Ian Rae http://lbdigest.com/2008/01/14/survey-results/comment-page-1/#comment-929 Ian Rae Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:27:33 +0000 http://lbdigest.com/2008/01/14/survey-results/#comment-929 Notably missing: Radware and open source solutions. Zeus...but perhaps their newer VM based LB isn't catching on! Personally I have Radware, F5, Netscaler, some older Cisco arrowpoint CSS, Alteon 184s, even some Crescendo boxes in production. iRules is definitely a huge selling point. Compensating for problems in application architecture with rules on the front end boxes seems to be in vogue, presumably since application development is expensive and complex whereas the network team can now turnaround feature requests very quickly. This bothers me a bit, since removing the F5 will often break the application logic entirely, but its good news for F5. Netscaler seems to be closest to F5 in providing an iRules-like featureset. No surprise that applications are still highly heterogeneous and stateful, or that folks are using the benefits of SSL offload and centralized management. What is very interesting is the increasing number of application folks who are getting involved with what was historically a gearhead product. I guess that's what application networking is all about! Again I would speculate that this is due to the economics of application development and change management. Notably missing: Radware and open source solutions. Zeus…but perhaps their newer VM based LB isn’t catching on! Personally I have Radware, F5, Netscaler, some older Cisco arrowpoint CSS, Alteon 184s, even some Crescendo boxes in production.

iRules is definitely a huge selling point. Compensating for problems in application architecture with rules on the front end boxes seems to be in vogue, presumably since application development is expensive and complex whereas the network team can now turnaround feature requests very quickly. This bothers me a bit, since removing the F5 will often break the application logic entirely, but its good news for F5. Netscaler seems to be closest to F5 in providing an iRules-like featureset.

No surprise that applications are still highly heterogeneous and stateful, or that folks are using the benefits of SSL offload and centralized management. What is very interesting is the increasing number of application folks who are getting involved with what was historically a gearhead product. I guess that’s what application networking is all about! Again I would speculate that this is due to the economics of application development and change management.

]]> By: the application delivery network » Load Balancing Digest's Survey Results Up http://lbdigest.com/2008/01/14/survey-results/comment-page-1/#comment-928 the application delivery network » Load Balancing Digest's Survey Results Up Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:23:45 +0000 http://lbdigest.com/2008/01/14/survey-results/#comment-928 [...] of his lb-l mailing list on load balancing and related topics. He’s blogged the results here, and it’s a great read, particularly some of the freeform [...] [...] of his lb-l mailing list on load balancing and related topics. He’s blogged the results here, and it’s a great read, particularly some of the freeform [...]

]]>