Karee, In general, "performance" has little to do with "High Availability".
In fact the higher your "performance standards" are the more you should be buying when you setup your "High Availability" environment. Because, you want more performance you have to buy bigger boxes on both halves of your HA environment to deal with all of the load on 1/2 of your "High Availability" environment to cover the event of a failure of 1/2 of the HA. And there is a diminishing return on the theory of "larger box = better performance" curve. Not to mention that most HA solutions actually add more routing logic into the mix which is bound to cost you some performance in the the grand scheme of things. How much of a cost that would be is likely negligible to the "performance hit" of a production server down for even one minute. :) So that cost is normally ignored. But the first time you are bit by a "Load balancer change" that routes your traffic off to China and back before it finally gets where it should be going... well you will notice that kind of "logical mistake. -- Carey Matthew Black Remedy Skilled Professional (RSP) ARS = Action Request System(Remedy) Love, then teach Solution = People + Process + Tools Fast, Accurate, Cheap.... Pick two. On 9/25/06, Lang, Karee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
** Hi, We will soon be upgrading our ARS hardware architecture and are in the process of deciding whether we should move to a true clustered/load balancing environment. I feel confident we will be gain better reliability and scalability by doing this…however, can anyone speak to the performance gains achieved with this setup? Thanks! Karee L. Lang Turner Technology Services Director, Client Systems Infrastructure Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. 404.827.4243
_______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at http://www.wwrug.org
