Stampede for patches disrupts Microsoft update site

TalkBack 27 of 56:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

And it seems load balancing is done by CISCO's LD

Remember, the conclusions and "benefits" of Windows over *NIX mentioned in the report were mandated by the expectations of someone above the team doing the conversion (Windows PR which funded the port). As they clearly stated in the details, no one would even bother to implement such a site on Windows in the real world because the licensing costs of Windows are prohibitive and the required feature set is missing. Enven the team doing tht port moved only a portion over to Windows ... and that was free of any real world costs and soley dictated by the technology!

From the conclusions (appears typo NLBS -> WLBS as discussed in the body of the text):

2) NLBS is at an economic disadvantage, due to its association with Advanced Server, and Hotmail operations staff were sufficiently satisfied with the existing solution that they did not feel the need to investigate NLBS?s operational advantages.

If you go back to the section on load balancing it says the cost of using the Windows Advanced Server 's Load Balancing was prohibitive (more than $15Mill) vs. using the installed Cisco LD solution in conjunction with Windows Server (more than $6 Mill). The teams own conclusions said Windows Advanced Server and its features were neither competitive nor best-of-breed, read between the marketing hype!

When considered in the context of a large web farm, WLBS has a serious economic disadvantage that can only be justified by the value of its administrative and monitoring tools. There is considerable competition in the IP load balancing market, which drives costs down; the numbers quoted above are based on the price we paid in mid-1999, around $17,000 per unit. An existing system that has load balancing in place will presumably have adequate tools, so the added value of WLBS, in terms of operational flexibility and superior monitoring, must be considerable if it is to be economically justified.

So, did MS simply take the Hotmail block and assign it to a bunch of Windows Advanced Servers using WLBS? Or, do you thing they simply sent the traffic to an installed LD solution with some new entries loaded in to take over for the Windows 2003 Advanced Server solution that failed at SAVIIS?

I know what I would have done ... I would have left the whole complex on FreeBSD and SOlaris and Cisco and focused on the business side - as they say, "if it ain't broke don't fix it!" The only thing broke in Hotmail was the marketing reality that it did not use Windows, and the economic analysis shows why!

Posted by: oldskool   Posted on: 04/15/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now
• The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now
• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now