Re: preferred LB methods

[prev] [thread] [next] [Date index for 2005/02/10]

<p>Hi Folks</p><p>Here's a post I captured some time in the distant
past:</p><p>o Balance<br />&lt;<a
href="http://balance.sf.net/">http://balance.sf.net/</a>&gt; and Pound<br
/>&lt;<a
href="http://www.apsis.ch/pound/index.html">http://www.apsis.ch/pound/index.html</a>&gt;.
I tried Balance first since it<br />was written in C, had a small
footprint, and had very few features (it's<br />only a tcp proxy with
round robin balancing and fail over). For the last<br />month, I've used
it successfully with intense loads and I've been<br />perfectly happy with
it. On a 1GHz Athlon (no doubt overkill), I can<br />sustain hundreds of
connections and many megabits of throughput without<br />appreciable
latency or cpu load. I use it to proxy http and https<br />connections
flawlessly. To top it off, it compiled and was usable within<br />a few
minutes. Reading the documentation took less time than the compile<br
/>and configuring it was even quicker at that. As a C programmer, I<br
/>appreciated the source code and was satisfied with the competence of
the<br />authors (the munich.net folks).</p><p>I'm planning on putting
Pound through the paces also but since Balance<br />works so well for
exactly what I need I'm not terribly motivated. Pound<br />has many more
features and seems comparable to the Arrowpoint systems we<br />use for
load balancing and fail over in our production environment. So<br />maybe
someday I'll have a Pound v. Arrowpoint showdown.<br
/>.................................................................<br
/>Sorry, author unknown at this point in time.<br /><br />-- <br />Ron
Savage <br />http://savage.net.au/index.html </p>