<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Amazon Releases Load Balancing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://serktools.com/2009/05/18/amazon-releases-load-balancing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://serktools.com/2009/05/18/amazon-releases-load-balancing/</link>
	<description>Your Tool for IT</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:42:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amazon Elastic Load Balancer Setup &#124; Serk</title>
		<link>http://serktools.com/2009/05/18/amazon-releases-load-balancing/comment-page-1/#comment-456</link>
		<dc:creator>Amazon Elastic Load Balancer Setup &#124; Serk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 16:36:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://serktools.com/2009/05/18/amazon-releases-load-balancing/#comment-456</guid>
		<description>[...] Amazon Releases Load Balancing  [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Amazon Releases Load Balancing  [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://serktools.com/2009/05/18/amazon-releases-load-balancing/comment-page-1/#comment-454</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 04:45:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://serktools.com/2009/05/18/amazon-releases-load-balancing/#comment-454</guid>
		<description>Assuming Amazons Load Balancer is stable and performs well I&#039;d make some back of the napkin estimates that it might make sense to move the SSL termination to the web server nodes.  Obviously there&#039;s a lot of if&#039;s in there.  It will be interesting to see how things play out.

I think it&#039;s a lot more interesting for IIS farms to avoid having to introduce a different OS to do the load balancing.

Cloud Watch looks very promising and very expensive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Assuming Amazons Load Balancer is stable and performs well I&#8217;d make some back of the napkin estimates that it might make sense to move the SSL termination to the web server nodes.  Obviously there&#8217;s a lot of if&#8217;s in there.  It will be interesting to see how things play out.</p>
<p>I think it&#8217;s a lot more interesting for IIS farms to avoid having to introduce a different OS to do the load balancing.</p>
<p>Cloud Watch looks very promising and very expensive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kyle Wiens</title>
		<link>http://serktools.com/2009/05/18/amazon-releases-load-balancing/comment-page-1/#comment-453</link>
		<dc:creator>Kyle Wiens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 03:55:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://serktools.com/2009/05/18/amazon-releases-load-balancing/#comment-453</guid>
		<description>You&#039;re right about the LB being a lot cheaper. Unfortunately it&#039;s pretty limited, and will require some backend work to get it doing things like SSL termination properly. I think we&#039;ll still have to use it in combination with HAProxy.

CloudWatch is also looking promising, although it&#039;s a 15% premium on a small instance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re right about the LB being a lot cheaper. Unfortunately it&#8217;s pretty limited, and will require some backend work to get it doing things like SSL termination properly. I think we&#8217;ll still have to use it in combination with HAProxy.</p>
<p>CloudWatch is also looking promising, although it&#8217;s a 15% premium on a small instance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
