Filip wrote:
>
> > if you want to do loadbalancing, you have much better performance using
> > non-clustered servers and a stateful loadbalancer.
> > as a matter of fact, you can buy a load balancing router for a couple of
> > thousand bucks, so why try to replicate functionality that is
> > already done.
> > even with weblogic, if you are serious about loadbalancing
> > because you have
> > sooooo much traffic, you do it the hardware way. again this is in
> > my humble
> > opinion :)
>
Sasha wrote:
>
> I think we need to develop an hardware-less solution as much as possible.
>
My $.02
Contributed in the spirit of:
"Are we sure we have a problem, and are we sure it hasn't already been "fixed"?
A few weeks ago, Marc posted a message about the "Sys Admin" culture and
how important it is to understand these guys if you're marketing to them.
I just toured the hardware room of a fairly large Texas company developing
large-scale internet applications. I know they're familiar with WL - they
might even be using it.
The place was stacked with Sun "pizza boxes", larger servers, and a rack full
of (vendor name deleted - they're much too big and overpriced) guess what...
load balancing routers.
It's what these guys understand. If it "breaks", they replace the box.
Tom
