Re: Load Balancing

On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Michael Vincent K. Pozon - CompE wrote:

>
> L4 switch ???? but why does Win2K doesnt need L4 switch ? it can
> loadbalance automagically ? but personally , i hate Windoz serverz!

There are alot of ways to load balance. I have no idea what Win2K would
load balance except for the fragmentation of it's drives, but since Win2K
can do DNS, I suppose it could be said to load balance that way. But
other ways require a router... either hardware or software. I surely
wouldn't use a Win2K Router.

A level 4 switch can measure performance on two caches, sending more hits
to the underused cache... a level 4 switch also can detect failure and
take a cache out of the group... this is difficult to do with DNS, either
Win2K or Unix.

Personnally, I need load balancing on my T-1's... and I have only one
cache, so there is really nothing Win2K could do for me... it's all
controlled by my router.
                                        ----Steve
Stephen Amadei
Dandy.net CTO
Atlantic City, NJ
Received on Tue Apr 11 2000 - 21:45:45 MDT