使用软件负载平衡与硬件负载平衡器的经验？
我目前在日常工作中负责的 ASP.NET 应用程序在单个服务器内扩展的能力方面已达到极限。 显然，我们正在努力将会话移出进程，并且测试和希望部署日期即将到来。 我想借鉴人们使用 Windows 内置负载平衡与设备解决方案（例如 Baracudda、Coyote Point、F5 等的解决方案）的经验。您是否从其中一种开始，然后转向另一种，为什么？
提前感谢您的想法和建议...
The ASP.NET application that I am currently responsible for at my day job has hit its limit in terms of its ability to scale inside a single server. Obviously we are working toward moving session out of process and the test and hopefully deploy date draws near. I would like to draw on the experiencies of people using the built in load balancing in Windows vs. an appliance solution such as one by Baracudda, Coyote Point, F5 etc. Did you start with one and move to the other and why ?
thoughts and advice appreciated in advance...
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（4）
我在负载平衡解决方案方面有一些经验，但这实际上取决于您的网络和软件的设计方式，以决定哪种解决方案最适合您。
就我遇到的解决方案而言：
Windows 中内置的负载平衡在大多数情况下都能很好地工作，尽管您需要确保应用程序在不粘性的情况下可以正确处理会话。 我使用过 F5 产品，主要作为缓存解决方案，但
它们对我们来说过于复杂。
我们目前正在放弃它们，因为开发人员没有正确使用它们，因为它们太复杂了。 （请注意，这些是相当老的 F5 产品。）
我们目前正在试用 Foundry 的硬件负载平衡器，我们可能会使用它们，因为它们非常适合我们的网络架构。 （这相当复杂。）。
所以我想说，如果您想要一个简单的解决方案，请在 Windows 中使用负载平衡（如果您的应用程序能够正常工作）。
如果不使用更复杂的东西。
无论您使用哪种负载均衡器，都会使您的架构变得更加复杂。 因此，请仔细计划和测试。
I have some experience with load balanced solutions, however it really depends how your network and software are designed as to which is the best solution for you to go for.
In terms of solutions I've encountered:
Built in load balancing in windows works well for most cases, although you need to ensure your applications can handle sessions correctly if they're not sticky. etc.
I've used F5 products, mainly as a caching solution, however they were overly complex for us.
We are currently moving off them, as developers were not using them correctly as they were too complex. (Please note these were quite old F5 products.)
We're currently trialing hardware load balancers from Foundry, and we'll probably go with them as they will fit in well with our network architecture. (Which is quite complex.).
So I'd say, if you want a simple solution use load balancing in windows (If your applications will work correctly.).
If not use something more complex.
Regardless of which load balancer you go with, you're making your architecture more complex. So plan and test it carefully.
一些想法
我们在网络中同时使用 WLBS 和 NLB - 成本通常会推动对话。 将两者视为工具箱中的工具，了解它们的细微差别、成本模型等。
some thoughts
We use both WLBS and NLB within our network - cost often drives the conversation. Treat both as tools in the toolbox, learn their nuances, cost models etc.
设置 apache mod_proxy 集群。
http://www.howtoforge.com/high_availability_loadbalanced_apache_cluster
比您想象的更容易，而且只需一小部分价格
setup a apache mod_proxy cluster.
http://www.howtoforge.com/high_availability_loadbalanced_apache_cluster
easier then you think, and at a fraction of the price
F5配备SSL加速芯片。
SSL 加密和 使用应用程序服务器进行解密（非常消耗 CPU 资源）会减慢实际请求的处理速度。
一般来说，SSL 流量在 F5 终止，正常的 http 流量发送到应用程序服务器。 这在负载均衡器上称为 SSL 卸载。
由于 F5 执行此 SSL 加密& 使用芯片（硬件）解密比普通加密快30至40倍 解密次数。
F5 comes with SSL Acceleration Chip.
SSL Encryption & Decryption (it's very CPU intensive) using the application servers makes them slow down the processing of actual requests.
In general SSL traffic is terminated at F5 and normal http traffic is sent to application servers. This is called SSL Offloading at the load balancer.
Sinces F5 does this SSL Encryption & Decryption using a chip(Hardware) it is 30 to 40 times faster than the normal encryption & decryption times.