How is this possible? Is just goes out on the network and sucks up overlimit traffic, preventing it from getting to the destination? I'm pretty sure that all the products out there require the traffic to pass through them to perform the shaping, unless there's some deep voodoo out there that I'm not aware of. > I liked their solutions because the traffic does not actually go through > their boxes. It simply plug's into your network, and you tell it the > gateways, and then all other machines use it as their gateway. It then > load balances the connections or what ever else you want via intelligent > routing logic. At least that was my understanding.
Brad, On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 09:31, Brad Davidson wrote: > How is this possible? Is just goes out on the network and sucks up overlimit > traffic, preventing it from getting to the destination? >From what I was being told at the time, over a year ago. You plug it into your network. Configure all machines to use it as their gateway. It will then make decisions regarding the next gateway or hop to use. Once the next hop is known it's directed there and traffic is not physically passing through their box? I have a similar setup where one of my routers knows how to get to a certain network via another router. When I make a request to the second network, my current router/gateway tells my machine how to get there. >From there the traffic is directed to that second router and network. Pretty much ignoring and passing little if any traffic through my original router/gateway. > I'm pretty sure that all the products out there require the traffic to pass > through them to perform the shaping, unless there's some deep voodoo out > there that I'm not aware of. It assume that their units can work either way? At the time they did not say traffic had to pass through their box. However most of SysMaster current diagrams except for one show traffic passing through their units? Not sure if things changed or someone mislead me. You know how sales men can be. Although I did speak with one of their engineers. I just do not remember who said what. I do not think there is any vodoo, just some proprietary routing logic? I would suggest shooting them and email asking how if it really matters. I sure wish a good spell or chant would get the job done. ;) -- Sincerely, William L. Thomson Jr. Support Group Obsidian-Studios Inc. 439 Amber Way Petaluma, Ca. 94952 Phone 707.766.9509 Fax 707.766.8989 http://www.obsidian-studios.com
William L. Thomson Jr. said: >From what I was being told at the time, over a year ago. You plug it > into your network. Configure all machines to use it as their gateway. It > will then make decisions regarding the next gateway or hop to use. So it replaces the Default Gateway. The traffic is pretty explicitly going through it in that case. :P
Brad, On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 10:36, Brad Davidson wrote: > William L. Thomson Jr. said: > >From what I was being told at the time, over a year ago. You plug it > > into your network. Configure all machines to use it as their gateway. It > > will then make decisions regarding the next gateway or hop to use. > > So it replaces the Default Gateway. The traffic is pretty explicitly going > through it in that case. :P Yes, but not in sense that traffic comes in one interface and goes out another. From my understanding the main benefit of the SysMaster solution was the number of connections being balanced had nothing to do with the number of interfaces. So even if the box only has two interfaces, you could load balance 2 or more connections. -- Sincerely, William L. Thomson Jr. Support Group Obsidian-Studios Inc. 439 Amber Way Petaluma, Ca. 94952 Phone 707.766.9509 Fax 707.766.8989 http://www.obsidian-studios.com
William L. Thomson Jr. said: > Yes, but not in sense that traffic comes in one interface and goes out > another. From my understanding the main benefit of the SysMaster > solution was the number of connections being balanced had nothing to do > with the number of interfaces. ... so it would go in and then come out again on the same interface? I'm sure it's great as far as ease of configuration, but to tell the truth I'd rather plug in an extra cable or two, and not halve my available bandwidth by doubling the per-link traffic. I guess it's a very targeted product, I just think it sounds rather silly.
On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 14:24, Brad Davidson wrote: > William L. Thomson Jr. said: > > > Yes, but not in sense that traffic comes in one interface and goes out > > another. From my understanding the main benefit of the SysMaster > > solution was the number of connections being balanced had nothing to do > > with the number of interfaces. > > ... so it would go in and then come out again on the same interface? > > I'm sure it's great as far as ease of configuration, but to tell the truth > I'd rather plug in an extra cable or two, and not halve my available > bandwidth by doubling the per-link traffic. > > I guess it's a very targeted product, I just think it sounds rather silly. I'm guessing it has two interfaces. Hence the sentence: > > Yes, but not in sense that traffic comes in one interface and goes out The one interface connects to the local lan. The other connects to a network that can route to all of your upstream providers. This way the load balancer doesn't charge you per physical interface. It's no harder to load balance 2 way then 4 way, but a lot of network equipment makers would charge you twice as much because there are twice as many interfaces (or would charge you a significant amount more to have 4 interfaces). I'm guessing this is a pretty smart option assuming the aggregate traffic leaving you network is less then 100Mbit/s. If it's more then 100Mbit/s, you can afford better equipment. This does have some latency and security issues, but would seem like a reasonable idea for a lot of small networks that want to split out traffic down two providers. If I was a window's admin, and didn't know enought about Linux, I'd think that was one really cool piece of equipment... *grin*. Thanks, Kirby
Kirby C. Bohling said: > I'm guessing it has two interfaces. Hence the sentence: > >> > Yes, but not in sense that traffic comes in one interface and goes >> out another The fact that it does NOT come in one interface and go out another implies to me that there's only one interface. If there's two interfaces, it goes in one and out another.. which is what he says it's NOT doing :P > The one interface connects to the local lan. The other connects to a > network that can route to all of your upstream providers. I'm not familiar with WAN routing... is it common to have a network that can be connected to with one physical interface, that routes to many different providers? > It's no harder > to load balance 2 way then 4 way, but a lot of network equipment makers > would charge you twice as much because there are twice as many > interfaces (or would charge you a significant amount more to have 4 > interfaces). I could see that.. but I was under the impression that on any network where you'd have routes to different providers that you want to load balance, you'd need a different physical interface to each network that the route was on. > I'm guessing this is a pretty smart option assuming the aggregate > traffic leaving you network is less then 100Mbit/s. If it's more then > 100Mbit/s, you can afford better equipment. True :P