On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Nicholas Tang wrote: > Oh, I agree with all of that. My only point was that, if the environment > isn't too crazy, you could have a varnish or nginx box running in an hour or > two that would have a bigger impact than the tcp changes and wouldn't > require making changes like that. That's why I started w/ the term "proxy" > in front of load balancer, because the benefit you'd be deriving would be > the tcp offload, not the load balancing (I considered leaving "load > balancer" out entirely, maybe it would've been more clear if I had). :)
You are absolutely correct from a technical standpoint. But doing this would require deploying a new system and that's not a simple task in this environment. These folks aren't agile and don't have a flexible environment. Going to a cloud model where standing up new systems is really cheap and easy is one of the things I am an advocate for. I had a recruiter call me last week about a job with a company that does lots of agile development. It sounded really interesting, but they decided to outsource their systems management instead of hiring. -- Matt It's not what I know that counts. It's what I can remember in time to use. _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
