Talk:Load balancing (computing)

token link[edit]

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.

Merging with Load balancer[edit]

Support - I was directed here by clicking the link on the Load Balancer page, to discuss merging these two pages. However I can't see any discussion! Here's my support for it anyway. Although it's clear that Load Balancing can be done in other ways apart from using a "load balancer" device, so I stand ready to be corrected. IanB 15:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content Switches[edit]

I dont see any discussion about Content Switches. I'll add something if I get chance in the next month, unless anyone gets there first! I couldnt see thes under [Network Switch] either. IanB 15:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I found some brief discussion of Content switches under Multilayer switch which I've expanded slightly. IanB 12:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not supported[edit]

"Networking and redundancy" section[edit]

This section's information sounds a bit like it was copied from a website selling something, especially with the bit about clients and competetors. Assuming that the info is valid, it needs rewriting. --Kennard2 16:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section reads like a guide or tutorial, not very encyclopedia-like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.111.106.161 (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the 1st person is strange in a technical article. Also one entire paragraph is repeated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danensis (talk • contribs) 10:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need more info on Load Balancer.[edit]

I think we should provide more detail on Load Balancer and the methods. Give more detail on its functionality as well. People who use Wiki looking for fast and accurate information Most of us use this technology every day so why not share our knowledge. Some of the information on this article is not correct. Can any one tell me how many IDS do you use in a single Network Environment? Do you really Load Balance IDS. The new Load Balancers are built in IDS and IPS. If every one agrees with me I would like to add more detail information on the page.

Network Load Balancing is not the same as Server Load Balancing[edit]

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.133.30 (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 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.[reply]

SSL off loading[edit]

I have started to add some of the detail on SSL off loading. Not too Tech but overview. and i have try to explain why this needed in my words. please let me know if this is ok with all of you. if not i will provid more info or i will remove the contents. thanks

Features list[edit]

The features list is a mess, only those deep in the profession would know all those terms. At least make them links so it looks like we're trying. ----RProgrammer 18:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Market Leaders[edit]

What exactly is the criteria for being a market leader? The list seems a bit long. It seems like some of the companies, in an act of shameless self promotion, have been putting their own name on the list and linking directly to their own websites. I am considering trimming the list down to maybe the top 10 companies based on market share. --Pchov 19:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Do it. Jim.henderson 16:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does my addition of Xrio (xrio.com) a Loadbalancing Hardware Supplied keep being removed from the Vendor Section? markrush@gmail.com 16 Oct 07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.163.53.115 (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--JimFerrans 01:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC) This article needs some balancing itself. It lacks discussion of software load balancing, and the huge list of harware vendors is suspicious. The list of "load balancer" "features" also seems suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrans (talk • contribs) 00:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the owner of loadbalancer.org and clusterscale.com (malcolm@loadbalancer.org) and I agree the vendor input to this page was getting silly, we put links on as well because everyone else did and google likes them. When I've got some time I'll try and help with some more vendor neutral comments. Ps. a lot of the features are also irrelevant and vendor promoting i.e. caching, compression and firewalling etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.134.12.238 (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between Mirroring, Failover, Clustering and Load balancing?......[edit]

What is the difference between Disk mirroring, Failover, High-availability clusters (a.k.a. Clustering?) and Load balancing?
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.
--Eptin 22:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. -- Gbdarren (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Link[edit]

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[edit]

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. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

billinghurst (talk · contribs) 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. II | (t - c) 01:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. II | (t - c) 15:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Domain-based load ballancing?[edit]

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

DNS Round Robin[edit]

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. --Zac67 (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have to login to explain these things?

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. Riahc3 (talk) 06:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]