Saturday, September 23, 2017

KEMP Presented Some Interesting Features at NFD16

KEMP Technologies presented at Network Field Day 16, where I was privileged to be a delegate. Who paid for what? Answers here.


Three facets of the KEMP presentation stood out to me:


The KEMP Management UI Can Manage Non-KEMP Devices

KEMP's centralized management UI, the KEMP 360 Controller, can manage/monitor other load balancers (ahem, Application Delivery Controllers) including AWS ELB, HAProxy, NGINX and F5 BIG-IP.

This is pretty clever: If KEMP gets into an enterprise, perhaps because it's dipping a toe into the cloud at Azure, they may manage to worm their way deeper than would otherwise have been possible. Nice work, KEMPers.

VS Motion Can Streamline Manual Deployment Workflows

KEMP's VS Motion feature allows easy service migrations between KEMP instances by copying service definitions from one box to another. It's probably appropriate when replicating services between production instances and when promoting configurations between dev/test/prod. The mechanism is described in some detail here:


The interface is pretty straightforward. It looks just like the balance transfer UI at my bank: Select the From instance, the To instance, what you want transferred (which virtual service) and then hit the Move button. The interface also sports a Copy button, so in that regard it's better than the UI at the bank. I look forward to the bank allowing me to replicate funds between accounts in the future :)

I think it struck all of the Network Field Day delegates that this feature is primarily useful for manual workflows. An automated workflow wouldn't need an "easy button" like the VS Motion feature. Unfortunately there wasn't enough time to get into KEMP's Automation/API capabilities during the presentation, but Keith Miller was tuned into the live stream and reported that the API is a pleasure to use:
VS Motion does not, as I understand it, have the ability to copy TLS certificates around right now, but  the feature request is in.

That Strange License

Frankly, this topic from the NFD16 presentation doesn't make much sense to me.

When you're buying boxes, or even virtual capabilities that are licensed by a bandwidth cap, you're going to have paid-for-but-wasted capacity during off-peak times. KEMP has introduced a consumption-based model to work around that problem: Pay only for what you use!

It sounds great, especially with the popularity of virtual services. When talking about physical boxes, it makes sense that you'd have to pay for any overcapacity you may have provisioned: There's the box, 95% idle, waiting for that peak traffic day... Full of expensive processors and RAM... Oh, and there's the failover box, at 100% idle... You probably didn't expect to get the hardware for free, right?

The situation feels different when we're talking about virtual appliances: How much would you expect to pay for a virtual standby server? One which, if everything goes according to plan, will never see a request from a live client? You're already paying somebody else (the server vendor or IaaS provider) for the hardware, so paying KEMP based on usage seems ideal.

But they've created an altogether new problem: KEMP's consumption based license model finds the peak throughput (at 5 minute intervals) of each participating node, then adds them up to calculate the monthly bill.

Let's imagine that your organization has a rock-steady 1Gb/s flow rate through an active/standby pair of KEMP boxes, plus a DR facility somewhere.

Every month you pay for 1Gb/s of usage.

Then one day the active unit fails, load switches to the standby unit. Several hours later, you shift workload to the DR site while performing maintenance to restore the failed hardware in the main site.

Take the peak throughput from each KEMP unit: Active (failed), Standby (now active) and DR have each hit 1Gb/s. That month you'll pay for 3Gb/s, even though the workload never changed. You just moved it around.

It seems like anybody with any degree of workload mobility will be overpaying with this model, unless the per-bandwidth price is also quite low.

I'd be much more comfortable paying per byte, per TLS setup or per load-balanced request. The sum-of-peaks model seems too unpredictable to me.

No comments:

Post a Comment