Talk:Load balancing (computing)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merging with [[Load balancer]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Content Switches 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Networking and redundancy" section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Network Load Balancing is not the same as Server Load Balancing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Features list 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes.  Do it.  Jim.henderson 16:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market Leaders 

message: 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)
replies: text: I added some amount of explanation to this article.  Hope that helps. -- Beland (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Difference between [[Disk mirroring|Mirroring]], [[Failover]], [[High-availability cluster|Clustering]] and [[Load balancing (computing)|Load balancing]]?...... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vendors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Domain-based load ballancing?