Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >John Siracusa wrote: >> But meanwhile, we're still open to alternatives. Surprisingly, there don't >> seem to be many (software) options. (A hardware load balancer is not an >> option at his time, but I'll also take any suggestions in that area :) > >I've always used hardware ones. I believe big/ip does everything you >need. However, if I were going to use a software solution I would be >looking at Linux Virtual Server, probably starting with the Red Hat >offering based on it.
We're currently using a couple of big/ip switches, but don't have web servers behind them yet (using them for smtp and such at the moment). We're looking at using them or one of the switches from NetScaler (netscaler.com) which looked quite impressive. NetScalar is really built for web servers (or so it seems from our meetings with them) while big/ip is a more generic solution. Both big/ip and netscalar allow sessions to be bound to a backend server, iirc, which can be a nice optimization (which we haven't had to take advantage of yet). -- James Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 979-862-3725 Texas A&M CIS Operating Systems Group, Unix
