Skip Links

Network World

Brad Reese
Back to Cisco Subnet

Brad Reese on Cisco

by Brad Reese
Previous Article Next Article

Cisco ACE vs. F5 LTM

By Brad Reese on Tue, 02/12/08 - 2:26am.
Newsletter Signup

Cisco Application Control Engine (ACE) - introduction and comparison with F5

Application delivery networking vendor F5 has published:

Application Delivery Controller Performance Report

A comprehensive performance evaluation of the:

Cisco ACE (Application Control Engine Module) 8-Gbps
Citrix NetScaler Enterprise Edition 12000
F5 8800 BIG-IP LTM

Greg FerroInterestingly, Greg Ferro - CCIE No. 6920 Routing and Switching, author of the Etherealmind Blog published:

Cisco Application Control Engine (ACE) - introduction and comparison with F5

Which explains why Greg is considering the deployment of both the F5 LTM and the Cisco ACE in his network.

Cisco ACE Introduction

The ACE comes in two formats, either a standalone 1RU appliance, or as a Cat6500 module.

The appliance seems to have a faster development cycle and gets the new features early, but the module has more performance in every aspect.

And what amazing performance it is, this thing can perform load balancing at up 16 Gigabits per second, which is about four times more than the F5 8800 (note some conditions apply in the current versions of code, due to ASIC inputs at 8 Gigabits per second but expected to be resolved in future code releases), and at a price about two thirds of an F5 8800.

Note: I accept raw speed is not the only measure of performance see more later.

But not many people are going to need a load balancer at that sort of performance, and the ACE module is a key part of the Cisco SONA strategy.

To this end the ACE module can have up to 250 virtual instances, more than 340000 sustained TCP connection, 15000 SSL TPS.

So this thing has high performance across the board.

Greg continues his comparison analysis with power reduction, functional comparison, virtualisation, management and futures.

Finally, Greg concludes that for large data centres, you will most likely use F5 LTM where you need it for a specific feature or task, but you would choose to have an ACE module for most load balancing tasks.


Read Greg's blog entry in its entirety


Furthermore, you may also have interest in the Miercom Lab Test Report:

F5 8400 BIG-IP v9.2.3 vs. Cisco 6500 Application Control Engine Module v A.1.3

as well as more

Cisco vs. Competitor Lab Tests

Video Overview of the Cisco ACE Module

Do you agree with the F5 LTM vs. Cisco ACE comparison analysis of Greg Ferro?

Contact Brad Reese
http://www.BradReese.Com

Tags

If you are making choices

0

If you are making choices today, you might also consider that F5 has announced the Viprion, which offers similar performance to the Cisco ACE, and by using up to 4 F5 blades you can dynamically scale performance. This looks to be a worthy contender and the multiprocessor technology looks like a good choice.

While I don't have pricing information, the idea for some dotcoms-style businesses who have peaky performance profiles, that you can just add another card to get more performance is a nice idea.

I also have become fond of the powershell and iRules editor interface for the F5, this makes it easy to use and delegate work to others.

But the ACE module uses a lot less power (this remains one of the biggest problems we face), has virtualization and is cheaper than the F5.

I still think you need both. ACE for heavy lifting, and F5 for features.

http://etherealmind.com

ACE vs. F5

0

Good review and discussion, and albeit this post is late, I would make a stronger case for bringing F5 into a new client's large web site management network than I would Cisco's products. I've worked with load balancers since the early days of F5's that couldn't do VLSM and Cisco Local Directors and since tested and evaluated subsequent vendors and generations.

I have had far more unpleasant experiences with Cisco's platforms and they had prior done a poor job of rolling out stable and competitive performing platforms (CSM, ArrowPoint, CSS115xx). They were notoriously buggy and I have it from reliable sources that their Cisco ACE Load Balancer is along the same path with many stability problems and feature problems that warrant some eyebrow raising skepticism. Some problems include resource memory problems, reboots required several times a month, high availability and synchronization easily broken, configurations are complex to manage and loss of connectivity when configurations are large and syncing.

My point is - I believe it improper to recommend such a new Load Balancing platform of Cisco's given their track record of releasing buggy new products. Based on their past record, I would wait at least a good year or two and the code versions have it several iterations before recommending a Cisco Load Balancer. I would at the least not recommend them to the general public until putting through trials in my own labs because reports of which platform is "bigger and badder" in terms of performance and capacity really do nothing for Network Admins who have to support them on a daily basis.

I would like to agree but....

0

Since I wrote this post I have been working on both F5 and Cisco ACE load balancers solidly. While I can't fault the F5, I am much more excited by the ACE and its potential.

I am now using the ACE 2.1.0 (3.0.2) code, released in April which added the features that I was missing.

Secondly, it has been quite stable. As someone who has been seriously bitten by Cisco code previously, I was hesitant to make a complete endorsement without several happy months to report.

Note that I have deployed the Application Network Manager to give me a very useful GUI to manage all my ACE units in one place. Given that I am running several modules, with more than a dozen virtual instances its a big help in keeping the configurations straight. Some folks are not happy with the CLI, and ANM sorts that out.

One area I have been very happy with, is the advanced debugging that the ACE CLI has. It is much more effective in resolving configuration problems than the F5. I can 'touch' a lot more and get results quicker.

But mostly, the F5 doesn't virtualize and this causes me great pain in having to create nasty hacks all over the network to get the data to go 'through' the F5. Inevitably, these hacks always bite me back, so I tend to use the F5 less and less.

On the other hand, iRules is so easy to use and with a lovely interface. Now, if only ACE had something like that I would be really impressed.

http://etherealmind.com

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Welcome, visitor. Register Log in
About Brad Reese on Cisco

Brad Reese cofounded BradReese.Com Cisco Refurbished, which enables affordable Cisco networks globally by assuring customer satisfaction with guaranteed one year warranties on both Cisco Repair as well as Refurbished Cisco.

Don't be shy, contact Brad Reese online or call him Toll Free:

International callers may wish to call Brad by dialing:

  • RSS
  • Contact Requires Login
Archives
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
Categories
A Clear Path to 100Gigabit Ethernet on the Alcatel-Lucent Service Router Portfolio
Allan Sulkin - founder and president of enterprise communications systems and applications consultancy - TEQConsult Group
Careers
Chambers and his Board of Dirctors urged Cisco shareholders to vote NO
China networking marketplace
Christian Brothers Investment Services notice
Cisco
Cisco F1Q10 earnings call
Cisco TelePresence
Cisco TelePresence revenue
Cisco engineer - Kevin Murphy
Cisco first quarter net product sales in emerging markets by fiscal year
Cisco has now become the target of unflattering employee reviews
Cisco is well known as being one of the best companies to work for
Cisco responds to the Dell’Oro Group Router Report 3Q09
Cisco stock chart for the last 10 years
Cisco's 1st Quarter Other Product Revenue By Fiscal Year
Cisco's F1Q10 earnings call
Cisco's Form 10-Q
Cisco's new Stock Incentive Plan as amended and restated
Cisco's upcoming annual stockholder's meeting
Data Center
Dave Donatelli - HP executive vice president and general manager of enterprise servers and networking
Dell’Oro Group's 3Q09 vs. 3Q08 SP Edge Router Revenue Market Shares
Did Cisco take its eye off the ball in emerging markets
Do you think Cisco can effectively compete against Huawei
FNF
Financial windfall for Cisco shareholders
Flexible NetFlow
Flip video camcorder
Flip video camcorder revenue
Gilbert Public School's $3.5 million network upgrade to HP
Gilbert Public Schools Board President - Thad Stump
Gilbert Public Schools assistant superintendent - Barb VeNard
Glassdoor.com is financially backed by 2 of the leading Silicon Valley venture capital firms - Benchmark Capital and Sutter Hill Ventures
HP also bid on the project
HP purchasing 3Com
HP's Converged Infrastructure strategy
HP's acquisition of 3Com
Huawei
John Chambers has had some good paydays as the CEO of Cisco
LANs / WANs
NBAD
NetFlow
NetFlow add-ons
Network Behavior Anomaly Detection
Network Management
Popular online career and workplace community - Glassdoor.com
ProCurve ONE alliance
Proposal submitted by Christian Brothers Investment Services
Proxy resolution during Cisco's annual meeting
SMB
Say on executive pay
Security
So how does one verify that Glassdoor's information is really from Cisco employees?
Software
Superintendent Dave Allison
TelePresence revenue
VoIP / Convergence
When Cisco used its common stock to buy Linksys and Pure Digital
Who's right about Cisco's work environment - Fortune or Glassdoor?
Wireless / Mobile
On The Web