Viability of nginx instead of hardware load balancer?

[Gena Makhomed]

On Wednesday, September 16, 2009 at 0:09:50, David Murphy wrote:

DM> Regarding ESX  you are completely wrong, as I mentioned each VM
DM> would be on their own HOST which means a the entire cluster
DM> would have to fail to cause the LB to not switch over.

yes, this is my mistake, sorry.

DM> Also DSL has been ported to 2.6 also.
DM> To be 100% accurate DSL = 2.4 while DSL-N = 2.6
DM> http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/dsl-n/

you are joking ?
or you seriously think what "DSL-N version 0.1 RC3"
now ready for production use as load balancer base OS?

DM> I was mentioning the cost difference in regards to building your own
DM> hardware based solution using a nginx setup as your LB versus  paying for
DM> hardware. To show how he could use nginx in an appliance manner. This
DM> would yield a better ROI and allow for more fail over.

such production of hardware based solution and continuous support
can be "a lot cheaper" only if your time and work cost nothing.

also, what about requested "no single point of failure" in this case?

-- 
Best regards,
 Gena