Talk:Load balancing (computing): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:22, 5 August 2009

Latest revision as of 13:05, 5 February 2024

(23 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject Computingbanner shell|class=C|importance=}}

{{WikiProject Computing|importance=Low}}

}}

==token link==

The token link at the bottom of this page links to a disambigulation page. It should probably link directly. I'm not sure which of the tokens on the page are reffered to by this page, but someone who does should change it.

Line 15 ⟶ 17:

====Not supported====

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

Load-balancer can be viewed as a two different way: one which is used for software where it just shows how loadbalancer can help to provide better way to use Servers. But, actual Load-balancer is a totally different, in Hardware and Software. So, I think that, 2 topics should be created, 1 for software side which only deals with theories and 1 for practial one which is available on market.

== "Networking and redundancy" section ==

Line 37:

== Network Load Balancing is not the same as Server Load Balancing ==

i work for a business that offers two very different product types for both terms. i think that the content currently available is wholly based around SERVER load balancing and not bandwidth aggregation performed by Network load balancers (hardware) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.38.133.30|82.38.133.30]] ([[User talk:82.38.133.30|talk]]) 18:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I agree Network load balancing should be called link balancing or WAN balancing.

A hardware or software load balancer is for server balancing

load balancing is very vague compared to either of the above and may relate to memory, cpu or even the construction industry rather than computers.

== SSL off loading ==

Line 64 ⟶ 67:

== Difference between [[Disk mirroring|Mirroring]], [[Failover]], [[High-availability cluster|Clustering]] and [[Load balancing (computing)|Load balancing]]?...... ==

What is the difference between [[Disk mirroring]], [[Failover]], [[High-availability cluster]]s (a.k.a. Clustering?) and [[Load balancing (computing)|Load balancing]]?<br />

I would like to see a concise comparison of concepts across all of these pages, as all of these concepts seems tightly bound, and perhaps some of them are identical.<br />

I would like to see a concise comparison of concepts across all of these pages, as all of these concepts seems tightly bound, and perhaps some of them are identical.

--[[User:Eptin|Eptin]] 22:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

:I added some amount of explanation to this article. Hope that helps. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 22:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

::I see that [[Website mirror]] and [[Mirror site]] point to [[Disk mirroring]], yet [[Web mirror]] redirects to [[Load balancing]]. I believe it is separate topic and all 3 should point to that new topic. The disambiguation page for [[Mirroring]] redirects to [[Mirror (computing)]]. It seems like [[Mirror (computing)]] would be a good place to describe different types of mirroring: websites, disk drives, etc. I think [[Mirror website]] should be the new topic and should be defined as: A Web site that is a replica of an already existing site, used to reduce network traffic (hits on a server) or improve the availability of the original site. -- [[User:Gbdarren|Gbdarren]] ([[User talk:Gbdarren|talk]]) 18:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

== Net balanceing ==

== Broken Link ==

The link to the article on Dell.com, last retrieved July 2012, is broken.

The link to ProxyOs is broken (Mar 3rd, 2015):

http://proxyos.org/

== Vendors ==

The following list I have removed from the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. '''IF''' a list is required, then it should be separate, see [[Wikipedia:Lists]]. Note removed the spam link which is also what happens with lists. — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 09:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

{{columns-list|colwidth=22em|

*[[A10 Networks]]

*[[Array Networks]]

*[[TDM LVS]]

*[[AVANU]]

*[[Avaya]]

*[[Barracuda Networks]]

*[[Brocade Communications Systems]]

*[[CAI Networks]]

*[[Cisco Systems]]

*[[Citrix Systems]]

*[[Clavister]]

*[[Coyote Point Systems]]

*[[Crescendo Networks]]

*[[Double-Take (NSI Product)]]

*[[EMC Corporation]]

*[[Exceliance]]

*[[F5 Networks]]

*[[Foundry Networks]]

*[[Fortinet]]

*[[HAProxy]]

*[[Inlab Software GmbH]]

*[[Ipanema Technologies]]

*[[IPivot]]

*[[jetNEXUS]]

*[[KEMP Technologies]]

*[[LineRate Systems]]

*[[LoadBalancer.org]]

*[[Microsoft]]

*[[NGINX, Inc.]]

*[[Nortel Networks]]

*[[Net Optics]]

*[[Pen (load balancer)|Pen]]

*[[PineApp]]

*[[PIOLINK]]

*[[Pound (load balancer)|Pound]]

*[[Radware]]

*[[Resonate]]

*[[Riverbed Technology]]

*[[Stonesoft]]

*[[Strangeloop Networks]]

*[[ScaleArc Inc.]]

*[[Zen Load Balancer]]

*[[Zeus Technology]]

*[[Linux Virtual Server]]

*[[XRoads Networks]]

}}

:{{User|billinghurst}} not sure what that lists article said back then, but it doesn't say much now. Not sure I agree with this removal or that lists don't belong in Wikipedia articles. [[User:ImperfectlyInformed|<span style="font-family: Times">II</span>]] | ([[User_talk:ImperfectlyInformed|t]] - [[Special:Contributions/ImperfectlyInformed|c]]) 01:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

::{{ping|ImperfectlyInformed}} umm, follow the links. Please tell me how a simple list of red and blue links improves this encyclopaedic article. Nude lists like this are not only less than helpful, they are also a honeypot for the addition of crap, or more red links, or external links. Please include comment on whether a categorisation based on load balancing providers is a useful means to provide same information. Philosophically we are not trying to build a simple directory type listing of vendors, that belongs at other sites or at other places. So in your reply, tell me how the links in the section above actually improve the article, follow the links and show me a direct relevance to this article. — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 06:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

:::A rule of thumb that I've seen applied in other articles is that only blue links are allowed. There's 9 links linked at [[Wikipedia:Lists]]. [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists]] says "Lists may be found within the body of a prose article or as a stand-alone article". As far as the relevance, solutions to load balancing seem relevant to me - whether that's an open-source solution ([[HAProxy]]) or a commercial one. Agreed that the way this list was laid out was not particularly helpful, but its removal leaves a gap in that this is an area which which is rather dominated by vendor solutions and now they receive hardly any sort of attention. [[User:ImperfectlyInformed|<span style="font-family: Times">II</span>]] | ([[User_talk:ImperfectlyInformed|t]] - [[Special:Contributions/ImperfectlyInformed|c]]) 15:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

== Domain-based load ballancing? ==

I'm considering about mentioning ___domain-based load balancing (for example, the use of [[WWW2]]). Not sure where to add it. --[[User:Franklin Yu|Franklin Yu]] ([[User talk:Franklin Yu|talk]]) 06:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

==DNS Round Robin==

Please do not add DNS Round Robin as a load balancer. It has no knowledge of the "load" of each servers and gives a IP in the order it is listed. Further more, due to client side cache, if a server is down, the client will not be able to connect to it. I have mentioned this example: 100 web servers with "Hello World" HTML page and 5 clients connect everyday. On day 1, clients will connect to SRV1, SRV2, SRV3, SRV4, and SRV5. On day 20, SRV100 will be reached and during those 20 days, SRV1 will be completely idle with 0 connections. That is NOT load balancing or even failover.

:Please add new topic ''on the bottom''. You can use the ''New section'' button for simplicity.

:DNS Round Robin doesn't work in all scenarios, but it certainly does work in some. Please do not repeatedly delete content when your edit is reverted without discussion and consent, see [[WP:BRD]]. --[[User:Zac67|Zac67]] ([[User talk:Zac67|talk]]) 09:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

:Now I have to login to explain these things?

I have to internet connection one is Airtel broadband & one is BSNL i want if one internet connection is down then second connection automatic up. how can possible <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/122.161.18.137|122.161.18.137]] ([[User talk:122.161.18.137|talk]]) 03:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:It isn't about scenarios or not; Its about a DNS Round Robin not checking loads on servers (see my example on 100 web servers), no probing if a server is up or down and not know what its pointing to: You can setup a DNS Round Robin for a HTTP page, SQL server and DNS Round Robin wouldnt care (no monitor)

:So PLEASE keep it deleted. At most, add a section as "alternatives" but explain WHY it isnt a load balancer. Thank you. [[User:Riahc3|Riahc3]] ([[User talk:Riahc3|talk]]) 06:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)