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 lot
of
hard drives that day! We regularly have quakes between the 4-5 region
here.
By regularly, i mean a minimum of 5 times a year in different parts of
the
country.

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 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]
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 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           --


------------------------------

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: