Load balancing on 2 pair outdoor AP1300 and 1 switch C3560 each end

Hi,
i will configure four AP1300 and two C3560G with load balancing can you help me.
this my design:
1. (AP1300#1 on switch A) <-----trunk via AP1300------> (AP1300#2 on switch B)
2. (AP1300#3 on switch A) <-----trunk via AP1300------> (AP1300#4 on switch B)
If uplink no.1 down i have uplink no.2 still up for a second.
Regards,
Edgar

If I understand the question I think that isdn  bchan-number-order is the command you are interested in.  I think it detaults to round-robin, sounds like you want ascending (that is isdn  bchan-number-order ascending).  It is an interface subcommand.
See  http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_3t/12_3t2/feature/guide/gt_ibcac.html#wp1055853
That may only apply to native ISDN calls and not MICA based calls, but see if that helps.

Similar Messages

  • Problem - I input a new event into my iPhone calendar and it does not update on my iMac or iPad. I have loaded the latest software on all devices and have switched over to iCloud. Suggestions?

    Problem - I input a new event into my iPhone calendar and it does not update on my iMac or iPad calendars. I have loaded the latest software on all devices and have switched over to iCloud. Suggestions?

    On the iMac open System Prerferences > iCloud
    Deselect the box next to Calendars then reselect then restart the iMac.
    On the iPad, tap Settings > iCloud
    Switch Calendars off then back on then reset the iPad.
    Hold the On/Off Sleep/Wake button and the Home button down at the same time for at least ten seconds, until the Apple logo appears.
    Hopefully the event synced over all the devices.

  • Switch-independent load-balancing NIC teaming on server-side and MAC/ARP flapping on L2/L3 switches

    Since active deployment of Windows Server 2012, our servers support team began to utilize new feature - switch-independent load-balancing NIC teaming. At first look it seems great - no additional network configuration is required and load balancing is performed by server itself by sending frames in round-robin or some hash algorithm out from different NICs (say two for simplicity) but with same MAC address. Theoretical bandwith is now grown up to 2Gbps (if we have two 1G NICs per server) against failover NIC teaming configuration, when one of two adapters is always down.
    But how does this affect (if does) switching and routing performance of network equipment? From point of view of L2 switch - it has to rewrite its CAM table each time a server sends frame from different NIC. Isn't it expensive operation? Won't it affect switching in a bad way? We see in our logs that same server make switches to change mac-to-port associations several times per second.
    Well, and how does it affect routing, if the switch to which server is connected is L3 switch an performs routing for the subnet server connected to? Will CEF operate well if ARP entry chages several times per second?
    Thank you.

    Since nobody answered here, we created service request and got the following answer (in short):
    L2 MAC flapping between ports is very bad and you must avoid such configurations as much as possible. There is one possible variant that can be considered in your situation - use port-channel (either L2 or L3), in this configuration port-channel will be treted as single port and there won't be flapping.
    Conversation example is here: https://ramazancan.wordpress.com/tag/best-practice/

  • Load balancing over two separate outside routers and two separate WAN Links

    Hi everybody,
    I have one 2851 setup with two separate ISP links and have it configured for failover with BGP.  It works great but doesn't load balance.
    Well now I have to new routers (3925's) to replace the single 2851 and I want to configure them to load balance over separate WAN links.
    Can someone help figure out the best approach to make this happen?  I would really appreciate it.
    Thank you,
    Thomas Reiling

    Disclaimer
    The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
    Liability Disclaimer
    In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
    Posting
    The "best approach", IMO, would be to use PfR (if your routers support it).

  • Load balance on CSM with both Firewalsl and Cache engines

    Hi,
    I'm come from VDC#3 ( Vietnam) , we have 2 CSM , 3 firewall , and 8 CE 7325. We configed dual CSMs load balance for 3 FW, and now we want to use one CSM to load balance for CEs. Can you hint me best topylogy network?
    Thanks

    your topology is correct.
    The problem is your config.
    If you need access to the CE ip addresses, you need to configure a vserver to allow this traffic.
    Something like
    serverfarm FORWARD
    no nat server
    no nat client
    predictor forward
    vserver access2ce
    vip x.x.x.0/24 any
    serverfarm FORWARD
    ins
    Replace x.x.x.0/24 with the subnet used by the CE.
    Regards,
    Gilles.
    Thanks for rating this answer.

  • Network Load Balancing between SharePoint 2013 App server and WFE

    Hi,
    Can we do NLB between SharePoint 2013 App server and WFE Server ?
    Below is our Architecture,
    1. WFE Server (1) 
    2. APP Server (1)
    3. Database Server
    4. Domain Controller
    We have configured NLB but, when we stop IIS on APP server, SharePoint 2013 web app link is not working. 
    is it possible ?
    Please help us

    You can do NLB between WFE and APP server however make sure that web application service is started from central admin which host sharepoint sites.
    Why do you stop IIS on APP server, definitely it will not be able to host web app sites. rather you can just disable APP node on NLB to test it.

  • Questions on replication and h/w load balancer

              Why does h/w load balancer have to support passive cookies and inspect them to
              dispatch the request to the primary server first? If we have in-memory replication
              and if h/w loadbalancer just dispatches the http request from the client to any
              of the weblogic servers in the cluster wouldnt this work?
              Is it to pin the session to the creator server to minimize the chance of replication
              misses due to n/w issues, member server slow speed, buffer overwrite etc.
              -Shiraz
              

    Yes, and previous to 6.1 (?) if the request showed up at the wrong server it
              would fail.
              Peace,
              Cameron Purdy
              Tangosol Inc.
              Tangosol Coherence: Clustered Coherent Cache for J2EE
              Information at http://www.tangosol.com/
              "Shiraz Zaidi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
              news:3c15aa10$[email protected]..
              >
              > Why does h/w load balancer have to support passive cookies and inspect
              them to
              > dispatch the request to the primary server first? If we have in-memory
              replication
              > and if h/w loadbalancer just dispatches the http request from the client
              to any
              > of the weblogic servers in the cluster wouldnt this work?
              >
              > Is it to pin the session to the creator server to minimize the chance of
              replication
              > misses due to n/w issues, member server slow speed, buffer overwrite etc.
              >
              > -Shiraz
              

  • Email notifications and load balancing

    We are load balancing 2 OMS's. The problem is email notifications have embedded links that have the OMS that sent the notification instead of the virtual hostname set-up for the load balancer. The OMS's have been set-up to use the load balancer per the OEM Advanced Configuration and from an agent/Web console perspective, everything is working fine and using the load balanced hostname. Does anyone know where to modify the email notifications so the links point to the load balanced URL rather then the individual OMS host that sent the notification?

    Thanks, but I was actually asking about the links that OEM has in the email content sent out as part of a notification. (So you can click the link in the notification and it takes you to the appropriate spot in the Grid console). I've since heard from Oracle support that modifying these embedded links to use the load balanced hostname (rather than the individual OMS hostname) is not possible and is something they say they're working on for 11g.

  • H-REAP and Client Load-Balancing

    I'm told by Cisco that H-REAP does not support client load-balancing.
    We have a situation where we want to deploy LWAPPs using H-REAP into a conference room where training would take place.
    Any suggestions on how to overcome the inevitable slowness these people are going to experience from being unevenly associated with the APs?
    We can't re-write the application so we are looking for a wireless solution.
    Anyone hear about how other organizations have dealt with this type of situation?
    I'll be glad to supply more details if I am not being clear in my description of the problem.
    Thanks in advance. All responses will be rated.
    Paul

    This is the functionality which is missing in H-REAP: Client and Network Load Balancing
    "Radio Resource Management (RRM) load-balances new clients across grouped lightweight access points reporting to each controller. This function is particularly important when many clients converge in one spot (such as a conference room or auditorium) because RRM can automatically force some subscribers to associate with nearby access points, allowing higher throughput for all clients. The controller provides a centralized view of client loads on all access points. This information can be used to influence where new clients attach to the network or to direct existing clients to new access points to improve wireless LAN performance. The result is an even distribution of capacity across an entire wireless network.
    Note: Client load balancing works only for a single controller. It is not operate in a multi-controller environment."
    I suppose if we limit the number of users that can associate with a particular AP then we will achieve some client load-balancing. Though a hard limit on the number of end-users will also lead to situations where some end users will not be allowed any access.

  • Shared SO's and Load Balancing

    On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:24:33 -0000, Richard Stobart wrote:
    Dale,
    If SHARED is true in a Service Object then the Service Object is not
    re-entrant (because many clients are sharing its variables and therefore is
    not multitasked (Funny logical naming if you ask me)). I got a lot of replies correcting me on what SHARED means! I do know
    what SHARED means, I just phrased it backwards in my post. Excuse me
    while I smack myself upside the head. :)
    All replicates of a
    load balanced partition are not re-entrant and thus equivalent to SHARED =
    true. The advantage of load balancing is that the replicates can be
    distributed over machines and thus the load is balanced. What I fail to understand is this: If you have a non-SHARED SO all by
    itself in a partition which is not load-balanced, it will be
    re-rentrant and multiple users can call it at the same time. But as
    soon as you load-balance it, all of a sudden it behaves as if it were
    SHARED. Why? I don't understand the technical limitations that impose
    this, nor do I understand the advantage. For example, let's say that I
    have 50 concurrent users of the SO I described above. It's in a
    non-load-balanced partition, so all 50 users can access it at the same
    time without any problem. Now let's say my server is a little
    stressed, so I decide I want to load-balance my SO and have two
    replicates, one on the original server and one on a second server. But
    now that I've load-balanced it, the partitions act as if they're SHARED
    and my 50 concurrent users are going to be lining up in queues and
    suffering from horrible response times. How is this advantageous?
    ================================================
    Dale V. Georg
    Systems Analyst
    Indus Consultancy Services
    [email protected]
    ================================================

    Dale,
    The argument for load balancing services falls into two basic categories:
    1. The service is blocking. That is, it is either not thread safe, not
    signal tolerant, or not re-entrant. Most database libraries are the most
    common example of this. Any partition that contains a non-multi-threaded
    DB library will block the entire partition. Thus, you MUST load balance.
    2. You want to spread the load across multiple servers. This is a tricky
    one - you really have to do load testing to see if you're getting the
    benefits you think you are.
    Load balancing vs. multi-threading is a pretty hot topic among all of the
    clients I visit. On a machine with native or certified POSIX threads and
    multiple CPUs, you will certainly gain significant performance by not
    load-balancing a non-blocking partition. Compare this with shared and/or
    transactional services within a partition, non-native or non-POSIX thread
    partitions, and machines with one CPU, and you have yourself quite a pot of
    fish soup. Add another machine with differing properties, and the effects
    can be exponential.
    Then, there is also the notion that load balanced services are
    intrinsically single threaded, which is not true. They can, and often do,
    act as single threaded services because of the router. But it doesn't
    imply that either the router, nor the partitions it routes, are necessarily
    single threaded.
    Don
    At 07:38 PM 1/21/98, Dale V. Georg wrote:
    On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:24:33 -0000, Richard Stobart wrote:
    Dale,
    If SHARED is true in a Service Object then the Service Object is not
    re-entrant (because many clients are sharing its variables and therefore is
    not multitasked (Funny logical naming if you ask me)). I got a lot of replies correcting me on what SHARED means! I do know
    what SHARED means, I just phrased it backwards in my post. Excuse me
    while I smack myself upside the head. :)
    All replicates of a
    load balanced partition are not re-entrant and thus equivalent to SHARED =
    true. The advantage of load balancing is that the replicates can be
    distributed over machines and thus the load is balanced. What I fail to understand is this: If you have a non-SHARED SO all by
    itself in a partition which is not load-balanced, it will be
    re-rentrant and multiple users can call it at the same time. But as
    soon as you load-balance it, all of a sudden it behaves as if it were
    SHARED. Why? I don't understand the technical limitations that impose
    this, nor do I understand the advantage. For example, let's say that I
    have 50 concurrent users of the SO I described above. It's in a
    non-load-balanced partition, so all 50 users can access it at the same
    time without any problem. Now let's say my server is a little
    stressed, so I decide I want to load-balance my SO and have two
    replicates, one on the original server and one on a second server. But
    now that I've load-balanced it, the partitions act as if they're SHARED
    and my 50 concurrent users are going to be lining up in queues and
    suffering from horrible response times. How is this advantageous?
    ================================================
    Dale V. Georg
    Systems Analyst
    Indus Consultancy Services
    [email protected]
    ================================================
    ============================================
    Don Nelson
    Regional Consulting Manager - Rocky Mountain Region
    Forte Software, Inc.
    Denver, CO
    Phone: 303-265-7709
    Corporate voice mail: 510-986-3810
    aka: [email protected]
    ============================================
    "We tigers prefer to inflict excitement on others." - Hobbes

  • Re: Shared SO's and Load Balancing

    Thanks, Tom. I understand this issue a lot better now.
    Dale
    On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 23:28:33 +0000, Tom O'Rourke wrote:
    Dale,
    You are right in that it many times does not make sense to load balance
    services that are multi-threaded.
    But, when a TOOL service object is partitioned with a DBSession service
    object, the TOOL service acts as if it is single-threaded regardless of if
    it is SHARED or not (while the partition is accessing the database). This
    means that the entire partition will be blocked (single-threaded) while the
    TOOL service object is using the DBSession to access a database.
    Forte blocks the partition to protect the integrity of the data being
    passed back and forth to the database because the database vendors have yet
    to provide a thread safe call interface to the RDBMS. This is changing as
    we speak and Forte is in the process of making the appropriate adjustments.
    So, this is the case where it makes complete sense to load balance a
    service that is not marked as being SHARED and why it can be a tremendous
    performance advantage to use Forte load balancing. As we all know, this
    architecture (TOOL EVSO partitioned with DBSession UVSO) is one that is
    widely used and proven to produce high performing applications.
    The point you bring up is a good one and that is often misunderstood. A
    load balanced SO will behave as if it is single threaded (or SHARED).
    FYI, we have just added a new feature in release 3.F. Performance-based
    load balancing. Check it out.
    Tom
    At 07:38 PM 1/21/98, Dale V. Georg wrote:
    On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:24:33 -0000, Richard Stobart wrote:
    Dale,
    If SHARED is true in a Service Object then the Service Object is not
    re-entrant (because many clients are sharing its variables and therefore is
    not multitasked (Funny logical naming if you ask me)). I got a lot of replies correcting me on what SHARED means! I do know
    what SHARED means, I just phrased it backwards in my post. Excuse me
    while I smack myself upside the head. :)
    All replicates of a
    load balanced partition are not re-entrant and thus equivalent to SHARED =
    true. The advantage of load balancing is that the replicates can be
    distributed over machines and thus the load is balanced. What I fail to understand is this: If you have a non-SHARED SO all by
    itself in a partition which is not load-balanced, it will be
    re-rentrant and multiple users can call it at the same time. But as
    soon as you load-balance it, all of a sudden it behaves as if it were
    SHARED. Why? I don't understand the technical limitations that impose
    this, nor do I understand the advantage. For example, let's say that I
    have 50 concurrent users of the SO I described above. It's in a
    non-load-balanced partition, so all 50 users can access it at the same
    time without any problem. Now let's say my server is a little
    stressed, so I decide I want to load-balance my SO and have two
    replicates, one on the original server and one on a second server. But
    now that I've load-balanced it, the partitions act as if they're SHARED
    and my 50 concurrent users are going to be lining up in queues and
    suffering from horrible response times. How is this advantageous?
    ================================================
    Dale V. Georg
    Systems Analyst
    Indus Consultancy Services
    [email protected]
    ================================================
    ================================================
    Dale V. Georg
    Systems Analyst
    Indus Consultancy Services
    [email protected]
    ================================================

    Thanks, Tom. I understand this issue a lot better now.
    Dale
    On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 23:28:33 +0000, Tom O'Rourke wrote:
    Dale,
    You are right in that it many times does not make sense to load balance
    services that are multi-threaded.
    But, when a TOOL service object is partitioned with a DBSession service
    object, the TOOL service acts as if it is single-threaded regardless of if
    it is SHARED or not (while the partition is accessing the database). This
    means that the entire partition will be blocked (single-threaded) while the
    TOOL service object is using the DBSession to access a database.
    Forte blocks the partition to protect the integrity of the data being
    passed back and forth to the database because the database vendors have yet
    to provide a thread safe call interface to the RDBMS. This is changing as
    we speak and Forte is in the process of making the appropriate adjustments.
    So, this is the case where it makes complete sense to load balance a
    service that is not marked as being SHARED and why it can be a tremendous
    performance advantage to use Forte load balancing. As we all know, this
    architecture (TOOL EVSO partitioned with DBSession UVSO) is one that is
    widely used and proven to produce high performing applications.
    The point you bring up is a good one and that is often misunderstood. A
    load balanced SO will behave as if it is single threaded (or SHARED).
    FYI, we have just added a new feature in release 3.F. Performance-based
    load balancing. Check it out.
    Tom
    At 07:38 PM 1/21/98, Dale V. Georg wrote:
    On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:24:33 -0000, Richard Stobart wrote:
    Dale,
    If SHARED is true in a Service Object then the Service Object is not
    re-entrant (because many clients are sharing its variables and therefore is
    not multitasked (Funny logical naming if you ask me)). I got a lot of replies correcting me on what SHARED means! I do know
    what SHARED means, I just phrased it backwards in my post. Excuse me
    while I smack myself upside the head. :)
    All replicates of a
    load balanced partition are not re-entrant and thus equivalent to SHARED =
    true. The advantage of load balancing is that the replicates can be
    distributed over machines and thus the load is balanced. What I fail to understand is this: If you have a non-SHARED SO all by
    itself in a partition which is not load-balanced, it will be
    re-rentrant and multiple users can call it at the same time. But as
    soon as you load-balance it, all of a sudden it behaves as if it were
    SHARED. Why? I don't understand the technical limitations that impose
    this, nor do I understand the advantage. For example, let's say that I
    have 50 concurrent users of the SO I described above. It's in a
    non-load-balanced partition, so all 50 users can access it at the same
    time without any problem. Now let's say my server is a little
    stressed, so I decide I want to load-balance my SO and have two
    replicates, one on the original server and one on a second server. But
    now that I've load-balanced it, the partitions act as if they're SHARED
    and my 50 concurrent users are going to be lining up in queues and
    suffering from horrible response times. How is this advantageous?
    ================================================
    Dale V. Georg
    Systems Analyst
    Indus Consultancy Services
    [email protected]
    ================================================
    ================================================
    Dale V. Georg
    Systems Analyst
    Indus Consultancy Services
    [email protected]
    ================================================

  • Ask the Expert: Configuration and Troubleshooting the Cisco Application Control Engine (ACE) load balancer

    With Ajay Kumar and Telmo Pereira 
    Welcome to the Cisco Support Community Ask the Expert conversation. This is an opportunity to learn and ask questions about configuration and troubleshooting the Cisco Application Control Engine (ACE) load balancer with Cisco expert Ajay Kumar and Telmo Pereira. The Cisco ACE Application Control Engine Module for Cisco Catalyst 6500 Series Switches and Cisco 7600 Series Routers is a next-generation load-balancing and application-delivery solution. A member of the Cisco family of Data Center 3.0 solutions, the module: Helps ensure business continuity by increasing application availability Improves business productivity by accelerating application and server performance Reduces data center power, space, and cooling needs through a virtualized architecture Helps lower operational costs associated with application provisioning and scaling
    Ajay Kumar  is a customer support engineer in the Cisco Technical Assistance Center in Brussels, covering content delivery network technologies including Cisco Application Control Engine, Cisco Wide Area Application Services, Cisco Content Switching Module, Cisco Content Services Switches, and others. He has been with Cisco for more than four years, working with major customers to help resolve their issues related to content products. He holds DCASI and VCP certifications. 
    Telmo Pereira is a customer support engineer in the Cisco Technical Assistance Center in Brussels, where he covers all Cisco content delivery network technologies including Cisco Application Control Engine (ACE), Cisco Wide Area Application Services (WAAS), and Digital Media Suite. He has worked with multiple customers around the globe, helping them solve interesting and often highly complex issues. Pereira has worked in the networking field for more than 7 years. He holds a computer science degree as well as multiple certifications including CCNP, DCASI, DCUCI, and VCP
    Remember to use the rating system to let Ajay know if you have received an adequate response.
    Ajay and Telmo might not be able to answer each question due to the volume expected during this event. Remember that you can continue the conversation on the Data Center sub-community discussion forum Application Networking shortly after the event.
    This event lasts through July 26, 2013. Visit this forum often to view responses to your questions and the questions of other community members.

    Hello Krzysztof,
    Another set of good/interesting questions posted. Thanks! 
    I will try to clarify your doubts.
    In the output below both resources (proxy-connections and ssl-connections rate) are configured with a min percentage of resources (column Min), while 'Max' is set to equal to the min.
    ACE/Context# show resource usage
                                                         Allocation
            Resource         Current       Peak        Min        Max       Denied
    -- outputs omitted for brevity --
      proxy-connections             0      16358      16358      16358      17872
      ssl-connections rate          0        626        626        626      23204
    Most columns are self explanatory, 'Current' is current usage, 'Peak' is the maximum value reached, and the most important counter to monitor 'Denied' represents the amount of packets denied/dropped due to exceeding the configured limits.
    On the resources themselves, Proxy-connections is simply the amount of proxied connections, in other words all connections handled at layer 7 (SSL connections are proxied, as are any connections with layer 7 load balance policies, or inspection).
    So in this particular case for the proxy-connections we see that Peak is equal to the Max allocated, and as we have denies we can conclude that you have surpassed the limits for this resource. We see there were 17872 connections dropped due to that.
    ssl-connections rate should be read in the same manner, however all values for this resource are in bytes/s, except for Denied counter, that is simply the amount of packets that were dropped due to exceeding this resource. 
    For your particular tests you have allocated a min percentage and set max equal to min, this way you make sure that this context will not use any other additional resources.
    If you had set the max to unlimited during resource allocation, ACE would be allowed to use additional resources on top of those guaranteed, if those resources were available.
    This might sound a great idea, but resource planning on ACE should be done carefully to avoid any sort of oversubscription, specially if you have business critical contexts.
    We have a good reference for ACE resource planning that contains also description of all resources (this will help to understand the output better):
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/interfaces_modules/services_modules/ace/v3.00_A2/configuration/virtualization/guide/config.html#wp1008224
    1) When a resource is utilized to its maximum limit, the ACE denies additional requests made by any context for that resource. In other words, the action is to Drop. ACE  should in theory silently drop (No RST is sent back to the client). So unless we changed something on the code, this is what you should see.
    To give more context, seeing resets with SSL connections is not necessarily synonym of drops. As it is usual to see them during normal transactions.
    For instance Microsoft servers are usually ungracefully terminating SSL connections with RESET. Also when there is renegotiation during an SSL transaction you may see RESETS, but this will pass unnoticed for end users. 
    2)  ACE will simply drop/ignore new connections when we reach the maximum amount of proxied connections for that context. Exisiting connections will continue there.
    As ACE doesn't respond back, client would simply retransmit, and if he is lucky maybe in the next attempt he will be able to establish the connection.
    To overcome the denies, you will definitely have to increase the resource allocation. This of course, assuming you are not reaching any physical limit of the box.
    As mentioned setting max as unlimited might work for you, assuming there are a lot of unused resources on the box.
    3)  If a new connection comes in with a sticky value, that matches the sticky entry of a real server, which is already in MAXCONNS state, then both the ACE module/appliance should reject the connection and that sticky entry would be removed.
    The client would at that point reestablish a new connection and ACE would associate a new sticky entry with the flow for a new RSERVER after the loadbalancing decision.
    I hope this makes things clearer! Uff...
    Regards,
    Telmo

  • Discussion on load-balance and load-sharing

    Hi, I found a article, which discuss the difference between load-balance and load-sharing. I think the explanation is pretty good, please see below. But I still have a question: how can we decide to choose one the both balance in the production environment ?  Thank you
    "In short, load balancing tries to distribute traffic evenly over multiple paths, whereas, load sharing intends to do it (for the lack of a better term) equally.  True load balancing is difficult to achieve.  For example, let's say there were two links (100 mbps and 300 mpbs) and a router needed to send out 600 mbps of traffic.  Load balancing would distribute the traffic evenly, sending 300 mbps on each link.  On the contrary, load sharing would divide the traffic equally based on the available resources, sending 200 mbps on the slower link and 400 mbps on the faster one. "

    Disclaimer
    The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
    Liability Disclaimer
    In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
    Posting
    That's not how Cisco uses the terms, and generically they are often used almost interchangeably.
    Cisco uses load balancing as the catch all for how a single L3 device routes across multiple paths to the same destination.  Equal metrics or equal actual load distribution are not required.  Most often, load balancing will be discussed with ECMP, but unequal path loading balancing will include Cisco's proprietary IGPs, such as EIGRP.
    Cisco uses load sharing when using multiple paths when a single L3 devices doesn't normally route across multiple paths or multiple L3 devices are involved.  Cisco load sharing discussions usually revolve around BGP.
    Generically, I would say load balancing has more of a dynamic aspect to it, i.e. something is trying to actively balance traffic across multiple paths, while load sharing might mean multiple paths are utilized but not actively dynamically balanced.
    I'm unsure what's your question with a production environment.

  • Load Balancing with ASR9000 vN and multiple ISPs

    Hi,
    we will deploy a new DC as Active/Active.
    We will have ISPA and ISP B in each DC. Internet users are anybody in the internet coming to our e-commerce DC application.
    How could we do load balancing between ISPs using the ASR9001 and nV feature ?
    There is any IOS-XR feature that could help us about to do load balancing between ISPs?
    Thanks a lot.
    Regards,
    J

    You have 2 options here Jordi, either you can use BGP loadbalancing, this requires multipath as BGP by default would only install one route from the BGP table to the RIB hence FIB.
    But this may result in excessive IRL (inter rack link) usage in the cluster when traffic coming in on rack0 wants to take the bGP path out on rack1
    You could also use ABF (access-list based forwarding) to forcelly push traffic received on rack0 out on the link on rack0 and use an ipsla tracker to fallback to rack1 in case the uplink is gone.
    Alternatively to extend this by IGP signaling to redirect traffic preferably to rack1 to start with to minimize the IRL usage.
    And then you also have the ability to use RPL in the uplink path to make one link more preferred on teh internet then the other in case you want to control a bit which link is preferably used on rack0 or rack1
    regards
    xander

  • Windows Event Collector - Built-in options for load balancing and high availability ?

    Hello,
    I have a working collector. config is source initiated, and pushed by GPO.
    I would like to deploy a second collector for high availability and load balancing. What are the available options ? I have not found any guidance on TechNet articles.
    As a low cost option, is it fine to simply start using DNS round-robin with a common alias for both servers pushed as a collector name through GPO ?
    In my GPO Policy, if I individually declare both servers, events are forwarded twice, once for each server. Indeed it does cover high availability, but not really optimized.
    Thanks for your help.

    Hi,
    >>As a low cost option, is it fine to simply start using DNS round-robin with a common alias for both servers pushed as a collector name through GPO ?
    Based on the description, we can utilize DNS round robin to distribute workloads and increase fault tolerance. By default, DNS uses round robin to rotate the order of RR data returned in query answers where multiple RRs of the same type exist for a queried
    DNS domain name. This feature provides a simple method for load balancing client use of Web servers and other frequently queried multihomed computers. Besides, by default, DNS will perform round-robin rotation for all RR types.
    Regarding DNS round robin, the following article can be referred to for more information.
    Configuring round robin
    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc787484(v=ws.10).aspx
    TechNet Subscriber Support
    If you are TechNet Subscription user and have any feedback on our support quality, please send your feedback here.
    Best regards,
    Frank Shen

Maybe you are looking for

  • Macbookpro doesn't recognize max resolution of an external display

    hi i have a macbook pro 7.1 i just bought an external display, LG IPS237L-BN 23 inch Full HD IPS LED Widescreen Monitor (250 cd/m2, 1920 x 1080, 5000000:1, D-sub, HDMI) my mac doesn't seem to recognize the resolution. after some internet research, it

  • DVD player doesn't work correctly

    I have a Toshiba Satellite L300 laptop. It's pretty new - bought in the summer. The operating system is Windows Vista.  I have a problem with my DVD player. It often just stops working. It sometimes works after I restart the computer, but for short p

  • What happened to photo albums?

    I have two sites that have photo albums. I can play around with it no problem in iWeb, but when I publish and go to the site, the photo albums are gone. I had these sites working just fine until the change over to Mobile me. Then the albums disappear

  • Uploading project back to server

    Three people are working on one project. There was some problem in check-in/check out and now it is currupted on one computer. Running copy is there at other two computers but as those are not latest sync versions so it can not be uploaded to server

  • Error 1935: An error occured during the installation of assembly component

    I am attempting to install SAP Crystal Reports for Visual Studio 2012. The installation (which was initialized with elevated permissions) fails near completion, with the following error message: Error 1935. An error occurred during the installation o