I have a pair of CS11152 (former arrowpoints) and they've been flaky. I do not recommend them. Not sure about coyotepoint.
""dre"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Coyotepoint was the first server load balancing device I had ever > heard of outside of your basic LSNAT configuration (I think Cisco > calls it NAT load-sharing or something, but there is an RFC also). > > However, I've never actually seen one in production on any > network. Around 1997-8 the Cisco Local Director was the > only box I saw, and most people hated them. Then, the F5 > Big/IP box became popular (and it still sort of is). A whole > bunch of people started entering the market space of SLB > and Global Load-Balancing. In the past few years, companies > like Arrowpoint and Alteon got bought by Cisco and Nortel. > Now you even have places like Akamai doing GLB for places > like Yahoo. > > After I've read the RFC's, and patents like US6185598, > US108703, and US6052718, and worked with SLB and > GLB for years, I've finally come to a few conclusions: > > A) The SLB/GLB marketing and focus is silicon snake oil > B) Just like the computer security industry, "[it's] like a carnival game, > where people throw ducks at balloons, and nothing is as it seems" > C) It really depends on *your* environment. Just as there are > millions of options for web servers and web programming languages > (e.g. .NET, J2EE, Apache+PHP+MySQL, Apache+mod_perl, MS NT4 > IIS/ISAPI, WebSphere vs. Weblogic, Zeus, Netscape, Xitami, etc etc), > there are millions of options for SLB and GLB (even deciding between > the two is impossible). > D) Even outside of products and software, you have your own organization. > How the coders build web pages. How the HTML is done. Etc. If you > don't have any dynamic content. If you are completely dynamic content and > everything besides the main page is somewhere under /cgi-bin/. These are > all organizational issues that are different with every company. Depending > on your setup, a different product may fit your needs differently. > E) SLB was grown out of the need for more bandwidth being pushed out > to the Internet by machines in the $100 to $5000 price range. These > machines at the time were 486's and no ubiquitous Fast or Gigabit Ethernet. > For a high-end Unix box with Fast Ethernet, you were looking at $30,000 > back then (at least). > F) Now, you can buy a Titanium Powerbook with Gigabit Ethernet running > Mach+BSD (MacOS X) for like $2000. You can get 2x CPU 1U machines > running FreeBSD or Linux capable of pushing >2k pps for under $3000. > The need for SLB may have changed over the years due to the hardware > catching up to the bandwidth needs. > > The SLB/GLB market is so confusing, probably "nobody" has it figured out. > > However, I can recommend one box today that stands above the others, and > the only one I'd like to see in any production network. The guys at Radware > have made some significant advancements in the way SLB and GLB are done. > Their WSD and entire line of products are much better than any of the > alternatives, and it is much more versatile for any real production > environment. > This is just my opinion, but I suggest you fully research the SLB/GLB > industry before making your decision. > > -dre > > ""Brian Zeitz"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I hope this is not too far off topic, but has anyone ever used this > > companies load balancers or products or have any feedback on it. > > > > > > > > http://www.coyotepoint.com > > > > > > > > One thing I noticed is that it only has 1 port in, and one out. Is that > > not normal? I have used Alteon Before, any feedback would be helpful. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=38957&t=38953 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
