-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
you could, i just finished going through an evaluation of several load
balancing products and ended up deciding to use Resonate. There were
several reasons, but the main ones were, ease of migration and better load
balancing due to better knowledge of what is _really_ happening on the
servers. Our system is e-commerce (home banking) and as such we are much
more CPU and memory bound then a "normal" web site.
David Lang
"If users are made to understand that the system administrator's job is to
make computers run, and not to make them happy, they can, in fact, be made
happy most of the time. If users are allowed to believe that the system
administrator's job is to make them happy, they can, in fact, never be made
happy."
- -Paul Evans (as quoted by Barb Dijker in "Managing Support Staff", LISA '97)
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Carric Dooley wrote:
> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 14:14:21 -0500
> From: Carric Dooley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'Schaar, Norbert'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
'David Lang' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: 'rich' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Resonate and Pix
>
> Sorry if this is a tangent, but:
>
> Could someone not use something like a Local Director or RND Networks
> Radware device? This is a hardware load balancing/fault tolerance solution
> that would show one mac/ip while shuffling traffic for multiple addresses.
> This eliminates the need for 3rd party software (like Vinca.. ichhhh...) and
> you get to use both boxes at the same time.
>
> (right now I would probably do the RADWare ISD or something, but Cisco
> claims their next release of local director will smoke the competition. We
> shall see...)
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
> I've got your point. Two ways come to my mind:
>
> 1. Two servers running in parallel. There you have two IP addresses/MAC
> addresses known by PIX. But for this approach the highav needs load
> balancing through dynamic routing (ospf would be an excellent choince).
>
> 2. Two server using any proprietary hot standby, which provides a pseudo (or
> virtual) MAC address to the PIX, so that take over from one server to the
> other is not perceived by the PIX.
>
> Sure the alternative is to drop PIX.:-)
>
> Regards
>
> Norbert Schaar
> Firewall Team - Network Security Services
> Dresdner Global IT Services - DreGIS
> Dresdner Bank AG
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQEVAwUBNqeStD7msCGEppcbAQHnoAf/cFICv4at1QSGMTf503tV4wEYds8A4zUV
m7oBBRtZij0wiIR5Z3xJ0CNaYZnEeCocVZW8CNNTeCN3rNS93ELJIYTNELyOXsFd
OOfEIo8F2ql6EVX+bnlyk60IpIIRfiI/stCG6kVNlYwz7om2ofvUreSf+e/797f0
0U0YfpurFTX7MhTaPyPsTWesvdy7Wpdtko7rOJA8U4y0PN7vPjAkXwgOlo03WUe2
GceQ157OHTKuQgZYAuHo/EHkYXcPTj2CJeBj5xBhHNEZoM2DK/uSOrtQ4WeIbDs9
+t3oZu/hwrWxDhw+v+fOQjW/hSFtMGaCn94fv9aFq/6znNxslDdPCg==
=CYYe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
