Contact Us

support@onapp.com

U.S: (+1) 888-876-8666

UK: +44 (0) 203-318-5364

Persistance on load balancers

Comments

4 comments

  • Avatar
    Reliam Engineering

    The loadbalancing currently in OnApp is woefully inadequate.  The onapp website says loadbalancing uses loadbalancer.org technology, so you would think that at least some of the basic features from that platform would be supported.  You would be wrong.   Lets hope they can at least give us the option to fully license the loadbalancing.com template to gain access to the features available, or better yet, switch to HAproxy as the LB template.  There should also be high availability load balancing as well as NAT architectures and the ability to remove instances from the LB without shutting the instance down.   

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Felipe Cruz

    Agreed, for me they ended up being useless, for web content we are using varnish and kemp load balancers. I hope they can really fix their load balancers since its hard for me to think on usage for the current option. Who uses load balancers if not clients with applications and critical environments ? .... no persistance on a load balancer is just crazy , useless.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Reliam Engineering

    I forgot to add that there isn't any content checking in their current LB either.   I'm trying to raise awareness of this issue with them.  If we hope to be able to compete with AWS,  we need a responsive partner.    I'm not sure if its just an oversight, but its not inspiring when nothing on the feature request list is tagged as done. 

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Niclas Alvebratt

    Is there any planned improvements on the load balancer? As for now it is quite useless.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.