Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-stratos-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-stratos-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 05FEF109FF for ; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 04:21:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 6055 invoked by uid 500); 16 Dec 2013 04:21:11 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-stratos-dev-archive@stratos.apache.org Received: (qmail 5873 invoked by uid 500); 16 Dec 2013 04:21:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stratos.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@stratos.incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@stratos.incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 5864 invoked by uid 99); 16 Dec 2013 04:21:10 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 04:21:10 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1998.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,HTML_MESSAGE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.3] (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 04:21:07 +0000 Received: (qmail 3890 invoked by uid 99); 16 Dec 2013 04:20:45 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 04:20:45 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO mail-ve0-f173.google.com) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username imesh, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 04:20:45 +0000 Received: by mail-ve0-f173.google.com with SMTP id oz11so2938175veb.18 for ; Sun, 15 Dec 2013 20:20:44 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=7ssx5K/J5tOUwaEYzcunu3UyKQXTJj4mlUVmTy3f1rk=; b=MAi2QoyiqnMVeQMiUuU7hiTsO+DyTtB9Flg7PM5XaLtlud84iOeYofF2aYNmE9vIoL u1cZg8vYEss0MVxlI+QdPo206k7tYmfLl/6cnFk5O29turaGMxuRpZO1kNphSII2U13r 7idmMSpjv6+bPWDd1ncNk6DJquJxzAln4CEn/KRGO2y1wAQXyYLqrab56Dz6WnKQlTAu 4j3d77TpUqPV3J+4KcR533yeQO1/PcDGKcJSCDpXUv+bTces7DuH6V5/ObxDqbgqUtQ9 9JzupyLRLtq7eRpO7FajYsMLqQHlOqvuYrxqNeAtDbRh24NNX5zwAggYHU95eyIM7zwK jVZA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.165.210 with SMTP id za18mr6407558vdb.20.1387167644610; Sun, 15 Dec 2013 20:20:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.35.231 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Dec 2013 20:20:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 09:50:44 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: What we have actually is an Elastic Load Balancer From: Imesh Gunaratne To: "dev@stratos.incubator.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2048eb377ff04ed9f225f X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001a11c2048eb377ff04ed9f225f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I also agree. I think when we consider the load balancer as a stand-alone product it does not handle elasticity. Therefore the better term would be LB. Thanks On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Lakmal Warusawithana wrote: > my vote also for LB, its only doing load balancing, auto scaler mainly > care of elasticity. > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Nirmal Fernando wrote: > >> Not really :) >> >> Elastic >> Elastic Load Balancing automatically scales its request handling >> capacity to meet the demands of application traffic. Additionally, Elastic >> Load Balancing offers integration with Auto Scaling to ensure that you have >> back-end capacity to meet varying levels of traffic levels without >> requiring manual intervention. >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Lahiru Sandaruwan wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> $subject. Came across [1]. IMO we should rename our LB to ELB. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> [1] http://aws.amazon.com/elasticloadbalancing/ >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Lahiru Sandaruwan >>> Software Engineer, >>> Platform Technologies, >>> WSO2 Inc., http://wso2.com >>> lean.enterprise.middleware >>> >>> email: lahirus@wso2.com cell: (+94) 773 325 954 >>> blog: http://lahiruwrites.blogspot.com/ >>> twitter: http://twitter.com/lahirus >>> linked-in: http://lk.linkedin.com/pub/lahiru-sandaruwan/16/153/146 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Best Regards, >> Nirmal >> >> Nirmal Fernando. >> PPMC Member & Committer of Apache Stratos, >> Senior Software Engineer, WSO2 Inc. >> >> Blog: http://nirmalfdo.blogspot.com/ >> > > > > -- > Lakmal Warusawithana > Software Architect; WSO2 Inc. > Mobile : +94714289692 > Blog : http://lakmalsview.blogspot.com/ > > --001a11c2048eb377ff04ed9f225f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I also agree. I think when we consider the load balancer a= s a stand-alone product it does not handle elasticity. Therefore the better= term would be LB.

Thanks


On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Lakmal = Warusawithana <lakmal@wso2.com> wrote:
my vote also for LB, its only doing load balancing, auto s= caler mainly care of elasticity.


On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:1= 6 AM, Nirmal Fernando <nirmal070125@gmail.com> wrote:
Not really :)

=20
=20 =20 =20

Elastic

=20 =20 =20
Elastic Load Balancing automatically scales its request handling capacity to meet the demands of application=20 traffic. Additionally, Elastic Load Balancing offers integration with=20 Auto Scaling to ensure that you have back-end capacity to meet varying=20 levels of traffic levels without requiring manual intervention.


On Mo= n, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Lahiru Sandaruwan <lahirus@wso2.com> wrote:
Hi all,

= $subject. Came across [1]. IMO we should rename our LB to ELB.
Thanks.




--
Best Regards,
Nirmal

Nirmal = Fernando.
PPMC Member & Committer of Apache Stratos,
Senior Software Engineer, WSO2 Inc.




--
Lakmal Waru= sawithana
Software Architect; WSO2 Inc.
Mobile : +94714289692
--001a11c2048eb377ff04ed9f225f--