nanog mailing list archives
Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 26, Issue 122
From: Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:32:38 -0400
Hi Joe You guys ever mount your racks on Barry mounts= vibration mounts..with so many shakes you may need to. RD
Message: 6 Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:14:12 -0700 From: Joe Abley <jabley () hopcount ca> Subject: Re: Earthquakes To: Ken Gilmour <ken.gilmour () gmail com> Cc: NANOG list <nanog () nanog org> Message-ID: <69CB2FCE-3D0E-44FE-93F4-8F3776DAD18D () hopcount ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 2010-03-24, at 13:12, Ken Gilmour wrote:We had a 6.2 last year in Costa Rica... We immediately regretted where we had placed our racks and are almost finished a project to move them to a concrete floor (rather than that compressed cardboard stuff). Lost a lotofhard drives that day! We regularly have quakes between the 4-5 regionhere.By regularly, i mean a minimum of 5 times a year in different parts ofthecountry.If there is interest in data centre provisioning or construction, disaster planning or inside/outside plant strategies intended to mitigate damage by earthquakes then the NZNOG list might well be a good English-language place to get some advice. Earthquakes of magnitude 4 and up happen pretty regularly (several times per week is common). http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/recent_quakes.html http://www.nznog.org/ Joe ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:19:54 -0400 From: "Peter Rocca" <rocca () start ca> Subject: Cogeco Contact...? To: <nanog () nanog org> Message-ID: <CBC1F36FC255BE4B85B08EA17298C78A9EDD35@pigeon.start.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Can someone from the Cogeco NOC please contact me off-list at roccap2005 () yahoo com? I have tried ipservices () cogeco net and 1-905-333-7055 without luck. Thank you. ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:34:52 -0400 From: "Peter Rocca" <rocca () start ca> Subject: RE: Cogeco Contact...? To: <nanog () nanog org> Message-ID: <CBC1F36FC255BE4B85B08EA17298C78A9EDD38@pigeon.start.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Thanks all, success. -----Original Message----- From: Peter Rocca [mailto:rocca () start ca] Sent: March 24, 2010 8:20 PM To: nanog () nanog org Subject: Cogeco Contact...? Can someone from the Cogeco NOC please contact me off-list at roccap2005 () yahoo com? I have tried ipservices () cogeco net and 1-905-333-7055 without luck. Thank you. ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:46:27 -0700 From: Darren Bolding <darren () bolding org> Subject: Re: Experiences with A10 AX series Load Balancers? To: Justin Horstman <jhorstman () adknowledge com> Cc: "Welch, Bryan" <Bryan.Welch () arrisi com>, "nanog () nanog org" <nanog () nanog org> Message-ID: <5a318d411003241846ue709334icce03515da414d3e () mail gmail com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Very interesting to see about A10's performance- I've heard mixed things about them. Just an FYI, the newer F5 platforms don't utilize the ASIC's- the performance curve of general-purpose CPU's has once again eclipsed what can be done with specialized silicon without aggressive (and expensive) revision cycles. The ASIC's also could only be used in simpler virtual server configurations and with certain subsets of iRules. That said, nothing else I'm aware of provides the functionality of iRules. I've used netscalers only a relatively small amount- and they are nice- particularly if your requirements are within their feature set- but my experience has been that things I take for granted using an iRule are seriously painful to implement on a netscaler. --D On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Justin Horstman <jhorstman () adknowledge com>wrote:The boxes do alright at low load levels. They do not have an asic techlikethe F5s so choke on large amounts of traffic. Management is a bitimmatureand you will find yourself having to use the CLI and the Gui toaccomplishmost advanced tasks. When we put them head to head A10 AX3200 vs F5 6400 ltm (note: 6400 was what we were looking to replace) Test: 1000 concurrent users from Gomez's Networks Loadtesting platform hittingasfast as the requests would close, going through our standard vip configonthe f5, and the A10 engineering teams 3 best efforts to beat that config that balanced between two Identical Dell 1950 servers serving a php page that responded with a random number (to avoid caching). The 6400 we usedwasin production at the time, and was older so we were expecting to getblownaway, see the results here: F5 - Peaked 160k completed transactions a minute sustained for 10minutes,0 errors, 112ms average transaction response time A10 - Held 60k completed transactions a minute sustained for 10 minutes,0errors, 360ms average transaction response time If anyone is interested in the graphs I think I can still pull them outofgomez. Though notable that this was all done a year ago, so things mightbedifferent now. ~J -----Original Message----- From: Welch, Bryan [mailto:Bryan.Welch () arrisi com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 8:35 PM To: nanog () nanog org Subject: Experiences with A10 AX series Load Balancers? Does anyone have any experiences good/bad/indifferent with this companyandtheir products? They claim 2x the performance at ? the cost and am a bit leery as you can imagine. We are looking to replace our aging F5 BigIP LTM's and will be evaluating these along with the Netscaler and new generation F5 boxes. Regards, Bryan-- -- Darren Bolding -- -- darren () bolding org -- ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:50:42 -0700 From: "Welch, Bryan" <Bryan.Welch () arrisi com> Subject: RE: Experiences with A10 AX series Load Balancers? To: Darren Bolding <darren () bolding org>, Justin Horstman <jhorstman () adknowledge com> Cc: "nanog () nanog org" <nanog () nanog org> Message-ID: < DFA5AECDEC85EE4087D45C463C19B375134183938E () KWAEXMAIL1 ARRS ARRISI COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Yes, agreed. I think the Netscaler falls into the category of the Cisco in this respect <ducks>. Seems the F5 gear is the 1000lb gorilla in this category and for the most part we have no reason to look anywhere else other than doing our own due diligence with respect to the other vendor offerings in this space. Regards, Bryan From: packetmonger () gmail com [mailto:packetmonger () gmail com] On Behalf Of Darren Bolding Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 6:46 PM To: Justin Horstman Cc: Welch, Bryan; nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: Experiences with A10 AX series Load Balancers? Very interesting to see about A10's performance- I've heard mixed things about them. Just an FYI, the newer F5 platforms don't utilize the ASIC's- the performance curve of general-purpose CPU's has once again eclipsed what can be done with specialized silicon without aggressive (and expensive) revision cycles. The ASIC's also could only be used in simpler virtual server configurations and with certain subsets of iRules. That said, nothing else I'm aware of provides the functionality of iRules. I've used netscalers only a relatively small amount- and they are nice- particularly if your requirements are within their feature set- but my experience has been that things I take for granted using an iRule are seriously painful to implement on a netscaler. --D On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Justin Horstman < jhorstman () adknowledge com<mailto:jhorstman () adknowledge com>> wrote: The boxes do alright at low load levels. They do not have an asic tech like the F5s so choke on large amounts of traffic. Management is a bit immature and you will find yourself having to use the CLI and the Gui to accomplish most advanced tasks. When we put them head to head A10 AX3200 vs F5 6400 ltm (note: 6400 was what we were looking to replace) Test: 1000 concurrent users from Gomez's Networks Loadtesting platform hitting as fast as the requests would close, going through our standard vip config on the f5, and the A10 engineering teams 3 best efforts to beat that config that balanced between two Identical Dell 1950 servers serving a php page that responded with a random number (to avoid caching). The 6400 we used was in production at the time, and was older so we were expecting to get blown away, see the results here: F5 - Peaked 160k completed transactions a minute sustained for 10 minutes, 0 errors, 112ms average transaction response time A10 - Held 60k completed transactions a minute sustained for 10 minutes, 0 errors, 360ms average transaction response time If anyone is interested in the graphs I think I can still pull them out of gomez. Though notable that this was all done a year ago, so things might be different now. ~J -----Original Message----- From: Welch, Bryan [mailto:Bryan.Welch () arrisi com<mailto: Bryan.Welch () arrisi com>] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 8:35 PM To: nanog () nanog org<mailto:nanog () nanog org> Subject: Experiences with A10 AX series Load Balancers? Does anyone have any experiences good/bad/indifferent with this company and their products? They claim 2x the performance at ? the cost and am a bit leery as you can imagine. We are looking to replace our aging F5 BigIP LTM's and will be evaluating these along with the Netscaler and new generation F5 boxes. Regards, Bryan -- -- Darren Bolding -- -- darren () bolding org<mailto:darren () bolding org> -- ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG () nanog org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog End of NANOG Digest, Vol 26, Issue 122 **************************************
-- Rudi Daniel e Business Consultant http://www.svgpso.org http://oecstimes.wordpress.com “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” - Bertrand Russell
Current thread:
- Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 26, Issue 122 Rudolph Daniel (Mar 24)
- Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 26, Issue 122 Nathan Ward (Mar 24)