Ace load balancing, inservice/no inservice serverfarms

I've started working with an ACE load balancer and came across something that just didn't add up to me. I can pull and put servers in and out of rotation without a problem however when working with a serverfarm or a group of servers I have to pull each one individually and can't find a way to remove say the entire serverfarm via one command. Does anyone know of a way to put a serverfarm 'inservice' or set it to 'no inservice' that would make it easier for large groups of servers needing to be adjusted.
Sorry if this isn't the write forum for this kind of question. Please feel free to move it if needed.

Hello Chris,
There is no toggle to set every rserver under a serverfarm out of service. You can only take a single rserver out of service at a global level, or under a serverfarm inividually.
One thing to think about - bringing down all of the servers would be the same as removing the serverfarm from under the policy map type loadbalance since it would effectively bring the vip down.
Regards,
Chris Higgins

Similar Messages

ACE load balancing and testing using soapUI

Hey, I am trying to crowd source a solution for this problem.
A client is testing using soapUI to an application that is being load balanced via ACE. There are two webservers behind the VIP servicing the client request. When client tests, requests are timing out per the soapUI log. A packet capture was taken and it clearly shows that ACE is not forwarding the HTTP data back to the client. When client tests by bypassing the ACE load balancer, it works fine. But, there are other clients from other applications that are making successful connection to the load balanced application via the VIP.
Question, is there any thing unique with making HTTP/XML based requests using soapUI? LB configuration is shown below:
class-map match-all EAI_PWS_9083
2 match virtual-address 10.5.68.29 tcp eq 9083
serverfarm host EAI_PWS_9083
description WebSphere Porduction
failaction purge
probe tcp9083
rserver ESSWSPAPP01 9083
    inservice
rserver ESSWSPAPP02 9083
    inservice
policy-map type loadbalance first-match L7_POLICY_EAI_PWS_9083
class class-default
    serverfarm EAI_PWS_9083
policy-map multi-match L4SLBPOLICY
class EAI_PWS_9083
    loadbalance vip inservice
    loadbalance policy L7_POLICY_EAI_PWS_9083
    loadbalance vip icmp-reply active
    appl-parameter http advanced-options CASE_PARAM
parameter-map type http CASE_PARAM
case-insensitive

Hi,
Your configuration looks fine. I am not familiar with soapUI but if it is like a normal TCP connection followed by HTTP requests, i don't see why this shouldn't work.
Do you know if there is a difference while using soapUI and normal request using browser?
Regards,
Kanwal

Need help with ACE Load Balancing Base on URL pattern

This is the first time for me trying to configure something like this on the ACE load balancer. I need help configuring a load balancing policy base on URL pattern. URL https://ineedhelp.com base on /willuhelpme and /imlost
Key: ineedhelp_key
cert: ineedhelp_cert
serverfarmA
serverA 10.1.1.1 443
serverfarmB
serverB 10.1.1.2 443
ineedhelp.com/willuhelpme-------serverfarmA
ineedhelp.ocm/imlost---------------serverfarmB

This is the first time for me trying to configure something like this on the ACE load balancer. I need help configuring a load balancing policy base on URL pattern. URL https://ineedhelp.com base on /willuhelpme and /imlost
Key: ineedhelp_key
cert: ineedhelp_cert
serverfarmA
serverA 10.1.1.1 443
serverfarmB
serverB 10.1.1.2 443
ineedhelp.com/willuhelpme-------serverfarmA
ineedhelp.ocm/imlost---------------serverfarmB

Is it possible to use UCS Blade Servers in ACE Load Balancing

Hi all ,
Is it possible to use UCS Blade Servers in ACE Load Balancing ?? Please note that UCS Blade Servers are not connected directly to 6500 Switch where ACE Module installed .i am expecting a good suggestion from whether ACE or Switching Expert
Thanks in advance
Sanjeevi

There is nothing that would prevent you from loadbalancing the applications that run on UCS servers. ACE can loadbalance applications that are directly L2 attached (bridged or routed mode) or even servers that are multiple hops L3 hops away using one-armed mode with source nat. The key to this is that the return traffic from the server needs to make it back to the ACE.

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

ACE - Load Balance SMB?

Can the ACE load balance SMB?
Server 1 DNS is msserver1
Server 2 DNS is msserver2
VIP DNS is msserver
Can the ACE replace the server name (or IP address) in a tree connect query with the actual real server name that is chosen for the request?

Hi , If I understood you correctly and you're looking for intelligent way to loadbalance NetBios/Samba - I'm afraid there is no such functionality on ACE, we can only do simple L4 loadbalancing for such sessions and can't change anything.

ACE load balancing servers on different subnets...

Hello,
I have the following issue.... need to load balance traffic between two servers already working in two different subnets (vlans), at this point is highly desirable to avoid changing IP addresses. Is it possible to accomplish this goal using ACE? routed or bridged mode? is it strictly necessary to have all servers belonging to a serverfarm in the same subnet?
Thanks in advanced for your support.

Hi,
You can do this, but you have to use client-NAT (Source-NAT) to force the return traffic to pass back through the ACE. You also then need static routes in the ACE context to point at each server. PBR is an alternative approach but I have not implemented that in a live network. The important thing is that the ACE sees both sides of the conversation.
The following extract from a configuration shows the basic principle:
rserver host master
ip address 10.199.95.2
inservice
rserver host slave
ip address 10.199.38.68
inservice
serverfarm host FARM-web2-Master
description Serverfarm Master
probe PROBE-web2
rserver master
inservice
serverfarm host FARM-web2-Slave
description Serverfarm Slave
probe PROBE-web2
rserver slave
inservice
class-map match-any L4VIPCLASS
2 match virtual-address 10.199.80.12 tcp eq www
3 match virtual-address 10.199.80.12 tcp eq https
policy-map type management first-match REMOTE-MGMT-ALLOW-POLICY
class REMOTE-ACCESS
permit
policy-map type loadbalance first-match LB-POLICY
class class-default
serverfarm FARM-web2-Master backup FARM-web2-Slave
policy-map multi-match L4POLICY
class L4VIPCLASS
loadbalance vip inservice
loadbalance policy LB-POLICY
loadbalance vip icmp-reply active
loadbalance vip advertise
nat dynamic 1 vlan 384
service-policy input L4POLICY
interface vlan 383
description ACE-web2-Clientside
ip address 10.199.80.13 255.255.255.248
alias 10.199.80.12 255.255.255.248
peer ip address 10.199.80.14 255.255.255.248
access-group input ACL-IN
access-group output PERMIT-ALL
no shutdown
interface vlan 384
description ACE-web2-Serverside
ip address 10.199.80.18 255.255.255.240
alias 10.199.80.17 255.255.255.240
peer ip address 10.199.80.19 255.255.255.240
access-group input PERMIT-ALL
access-group output PERMIT-ALL
nat-pool 1 10.199.80.20 10.199.80.20 netmask 255.255.255.240 pat
no shutdown
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.199.80.9
ip route 10.199.95.2 255.255.255.255 10.199.80.21
ip route 10.199.38.68 255.255.255.255 10.199.80.21
HTH
Cathy

ACE Load Balancing Problem

Hi,
I have ACE 4701 with c4710ace-mz.A3_2_2.bin image. In the current setup ACE is located in the center of network where all the WAN, Intenret and LAN is connected and ACE has default towards Internet and All other segment has default route towards ACE appliance. ACe is only redirecting the port 80 traffic to my Proxy server and bypass my lan subnet on port 80.
Internet
i
i
i
i
i
ACE--------------------------------WAN
i
i
i
i
LAN
I want to use ACE for the load balancing of two servers. Today I did the load balancing configuration but as soon as I applied the policy map on the interface vlan 200 and 300, my complete network reachability went down. When I remove the policy my network came back to normal.
192.168.200.66 FAX Server-1
192.1168.200.67 FAX Server-2
192.168.200.65   Virtual IP address
Attached is the configuration that I did on ACE for the load balancing and below is the current configuration of the ACE appliance.
access-list acl-in remark ACCESS LIST FOR ACE-INSIDE
access-list acl-in line 1 extended permit ip any any
access-list acl-out remark ACCESS LIST FOR ACE-OUTSIDE
access-list acl-out line 1 extended permit ip any any
access-list acl-proxy remark ACCESS LIST FOR PROXY SEGMENT
access-list acl-proxy line 1 extended permit ip any any
access-list acl-wan remark ACCESS LIST FOR WAN SEGMENT
access-list acl-wan line 1 extended permit ip any any
probe tcp PROBE_5050
port 5050
interval 15
passdetect interval 60
open 1
probe tcp PROBE_5101
port 5101
interval 15
passdetect interval 60
open 1
probe tcp PROBE_TCP
port 80
interval 15
passdetect interval 60
open 1
parameter-map type http PARAMAP_CASE
case-insensitive
no persistence-rebalance
rserver host RS_BCPR01
ip address 192.168.0.103
inservice
rserver host RS_BCPR02
ip address 192.168.0.104
inservice
rserver host RT_fax1
description Right Fax Server-1
ip address 192.168.200.66
rserver host RT_fax2
description Right Fax Server-2
ip address 192.168.200.67
serverfarm host SF_BCPR
transparent
probe PROBE_5050
probe PROBE_5101
probe PROBE_TCP
rserver RS_BCPR01
inservice
rserver RS_BCPR02
inservice
serverfarm host SF_RT_fax
rserver RT_fax1
rserver RT_fax2
sticky ip-netmask 255.255.255.255 address source STICKY-SOURCE
replicate sticky
serverfarm SF_BCPR
sticky ip-netmask 255.255.255.255 address source FAX-STICKY
replicate sticky
serverfarm SF_RT_fax
class-map type management match-any CM_ALL
2 match protocol snmp any
3 match protocol http any
4 match protocol https any
5 match protocol icmp any
6 match protocol telnet any
class-map match-any CM_BYPASS_FOR_LAN
3 match virtual-address 100.1.1.0 255.255.255.0 tcp eq www
8 match virtual-address 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 tcp eq www
9 match virtual-address 172.16.0.0 255.255.0.0 tcp eq www
10 match virtual-address 192.168.0.0 255.255.0.0 tcp eq www
class-map match-any CM_BYPASS_SUBNET
9 match virtual-address 100.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 tcp eq www
13 match virtual-address 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 tcp eq www
14 match virtual-address 172.16.0.0 255.255.0.0 tcp eq www
15 match virtual-address 192.168.0.0 255.255.0.0 tcp eq www
class-map match-any CM_IM
2 match virtual-address 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 tcp eq 5050
3 match virtual-address 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 tcp eq 1080
4 match virtual-address 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 tcp eq 5101
class-map match-all CM_SF_BCPR
255 match virtual-address 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 tcp eq www
class-map match-any RT_FAX
2 match virtual-address 192.168.200.65 0.0.0.0 any
policy-map type management first-match PM_ALL
class CM_ALL
permit
policy-map type loadbalance http first-match PM_L7_BYPASS_FOR_LAN_HTTP
class class-default
forward
policy-map type loadbalance http first-match PM_L7_BYPASS_HTTP
class class-default
forward
policy-map type loadbalance first-match PM_LB_RT_FAX
class class-default
sticky-serverfarm FAX-STICKY
policy-map type loadbalance http first-match PM_LB_SF_BCPROXY
class class-default
sticky-serverfarm STICKY-SOURCE
policy-map multi-match PM_BYPASS_FOR_LAN_HTTP
class CM_BYPASS_FOR_LAN
loadbalance vip inservice
loadbalance policy PM_L7_BYPASS_FOR_LAN_HTTP
policy-map multi-match PM_BYPASS_HTTP
class CM_BYPASS_SUBNET
loadbalance vip inservice
loadbalance policy PM_L7_BYPASS_HTTP
policy-map multi-match PM_MAIN_BCPROXY
class CM_SF_BCPR
loadbalance vip inservice
loadbalance policy PM_LB_SF_BCPROXY
loadbalance vip icmp-reply active
appl-parameter http advanced-options PARAMAP_CASE
class CM_IM
loadbalance vip inservice
loadbalance policy PM_LB_SF_BCPROXY
policy-map multi-match PM_RT_FAX
class RT_FAX
loadbalance vip inservice
loadbalance policy PM_LB_RT_FAX
service-policy input PM_ALL
interface vlan 100
description FW-INSIDE CONTEXT RACK1
ip address 192.168.0.5 255.255.255.224
alias 192.168.0.11 255.255.255.224
peer ip address 192.168.0.6 255.255.255.224
mac-address autogenerate
no icmp-guard
access-group input acl-out
no shutdown
interface vlan 200
description WAN-VLAN CONTEXT RACK1
ip address 192.168.0.33 255.255.255.224
alias 192.168.0.43 255.255.255.224
peer ip address 192.168.0.34 255.255.255.224
mac-address autogenerate
access-group input acl-wan
service-policy input PM_BYPASS_HTTP
service-policy input PM_MAIN_BCPROXY
no shutdown
interface vlan 300
description ACE-INSIDE CONTEXT RACK1
ip address 192.168.0.65 255.255.255.224
alias 192.168.0.73 255.255.255.224
peer ip address 192.168.0.66 255.255.255.224
mac-address autogenerate
access-group input acl-in
service-policy input PM_BYPASS_FOR_LAN_HTTP
service-policy input PM_BYPASS_HTTP
service-policy input PM_MAIN_BCPROXY
no shutdown
interface vlan 301
description BC-VLAN CONTEXT RACK1
ip address 192.168.0.97 255.255.255.224
alias 192.168.0.107 255.255.255.224
peer ip address 192.168.0.98 255.255.255.224
mac-address autogenerate
access-group input acl-proxy
no shutdown
ft track interface TRACKING_FOR_FT_VLAN
track-interface vlan 300
peer track-interface vlan 300
priority 255
peer priority 255
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1
Please help me out what i am missing. Is there any limitation on policy map or my bypass subnet list is creating problem.

I did these changes this time nothing disconnected but I am not able to do the Remote desktop on the virtual IP address. Real IP has Remote desktop enabled even VIP is not ping able for me.
rserver host RT_fax1
description Right Fax Server-1
ip address 192.168.200.66
inservice
rserver host RT_fax2
description Right Fax Server-2
ip address 192.168.200.67
inservice
serverfarm host SF_RT_fax
rserver RT_fax1
    inservice
rserver RT_fax2
    inservice
policy-map type loadbalance rdp first-match PM_LB_RT_FAX
class class-default
    serverfarm SF_RT_fax
policy-map multi-match PM_RT_FAX
class RT_FAX
    loadbalance vip inservice
    loadbalance policy PM_LB_RT_FAX
    loadbalance vip icmp-reply active
interface vlan 200
description WAN-VLAN CONTEXT RACK1
ip address 192.168.0.33 255.255.255.224
alias 192.168.0.43 255.255.255.224
peer ip address 192.168.0.34 255.255.255.224
mac-address autogenerate
access-group input acl-wan
service-policy input PM_BYPASS_HTTP
service-policy input PM_MAIN_BCPROXY
service-policy input PM_RT_FAX
no shutdown
interface vlan 300
description ACE-INSIDE CONTEXT RACK1
ip address 192.168.0.65 255.255.255.224
alias 192.168.0.73 255.255.255.224
peer ip address 192.168.0.66 255.255.255.224
mac-address autogenerate
access-group input acl-in
service-policy input PM_BYPASS_FOR_LAN_HTTP
service-policy input PM_BYPASS_HTTP
service-policy input PM_MAIN_BCPROXY
service-policy input PM_RT_FAX
no shutdown
But nothing is working for me. Please help me out. This time i didnt configure the sticky. But in real I will go with sticky and complete IP protocol will be use a VIP. Please help me out.

ACE load balance based on Source IP Address

Hi Cisco Support,
I have question related to Cisco ACE behavior in term to taking a decision based on source address
I currently have two servers sits behind ACE part of one server farm, these servers are load balanced via one VIP on ACE module and every things looks fine.
Now service owners want to replace these old servers with new hardware hence before the migration we need to make sure these new servers are working as required standard hence need to create a testing scenario for new servers along with old server. The problem is that number of third party partners are accessing existing servers by hitting VIP on ace and we can't engage all our partner to participate in this test therefore decided to engage only one partner to carry our test with us.
For that reason can we some how configure the ACE so when packet arrive on ACE from one test partner mentioned above, ACE send only that partner's traffic based on it's source address (define via class/policy map on ACE if possible) towards new servers in the existing server farm and not to the old server in the same server farm.
Thanks for your support

Hi,
Just to put some config sample that might help you to get this done.
First create the new rservers and include them under a new serverfarm (New-APP)/
serverfarm host Webfarm
rserver SVR1
    inservice
rserver SVR2
    inservice
serverfarm host New-APP
rserver New-1
    inservice
rserver New-2
    inservice
- Same VIP already working.
class-map match-all VIP-HTTP
2 match virtual-address 10.10.10.10 tcp eq www
- Create a new class that will include your partner's IP(s).
class-map type http loadbalance match-any 3rd-Party
2 match source-address 200.200.200.1 255.255.255.255
3 match source-address 200.200.200.10 255.255.255.255
Modify your current first-match policy to put the new class on top so that all the traffic matched by the statement above (IP) will be redirected to the new farm with the new APP, any other traffic that does not match the "rule" will be sent to the old serverfam with the old app.
policy-map type loadbalance first-match L7-SLB
class 3rd-Party
    serverfarm New-APP
class class-default
    serverfarm Webfarm
Since you already have LB working then this is it, nothing needs to be added under the multi-match policy nor interface.
HTH
Pablo

Lync 2010 and ACE load balancing

Hi there,
Has anyone deployed [or will be deploying] Lync 2010 utilising the ACE as a hardware load balancer. The ACE is not {yet] on the Microsoft list of supported devices for this product, but I am told this because of lack of documentation from Cisco.
The consensus from a few colleagues is that it should work as it did for OCS, which we have already deployed, so assuming that the set up and operation is similar, there shouldn't be much difference in the configurations.
regards,
Glenne.

Hey Glenne,
It seems you got that working already but I wanted to share this simple sample:
parameter-map type http PARAMETER
set header-maxparse-length 65535
set content-maxparse-length 65535
============================================
interface vlan 112
ip address 10.198.16.71 255.255.255.192
alias 10.198.16.124 255.255.255.192
peer ip address 10.198.16.72 255.255.255.192
mac-sticky enable
access-group input anyone
nat-pool 25 10.198.16.125 10.198.16.125 netmask 255.255.255.0 pat
service-policy input ANS-MGT
service-policy input VIPS
no shutdown
============================================
policy-map multi-match VIPS
class LYNC_VIP
    loadbalance policy LYNC_POLICY
    ssl-proxy server SSL_LYNC_TERMINATION
    loadbalance vip icmp-reply active
    nat dynamic 25 vlan 112
    appl-parameter http advanced-options PARAMETER
============================================
class-map match-all LYNC_VIP
2 match virtual-address 10.198.16.125 tcp eq https
============================================
ssl-proxy service SSL_LYNC_TERMINATION
key tac-key
cert tac-cert
chaingroup tac-chaingroup
============================================
policy-map type loadbalance first-match LYNC_POLICY
class class-default
    sticky-serverfarm LYNC_COOKIE
============================================
sticky http-cookie ACE_COOKIE LYNC_COOKIE
timeout 30
replicate sticky
serverfarm LYNC_FARM
============================================
serverfarm host LYNC_FARM
rserver LYNC_SERVER1 80
    inservice
rserver LYNC_SERVER2 80
    inservice
============================================
rserver host LYNC_SERVER1
ip address 10.198.16.93
inservice
rserver host LYNC_SERVER2
ip address 10.198.16.113
inservice
===========================================
Jorge

ACE Load Balancing

Hi all,
I´m configuring 2 ACE 4710 in failover, and I also need to balance 2 webservers at the momment. I have all of the IP address in the same subnet, is that a problem?
Server 1 192.168.1.1
Server 2 192.168.1.2
VIP 192.168.1.3
I have a VLAN for administration, and I have a VLAN for the client connection.
But when I try to connect to the VIP, It doesn't show the web page, but if I connect to the servers page directly they are working ok..
Does anybody know what can i check, or if there is any manual that really shows how to configure this type of connections.
Thanks..

Hello,
From your description, it sounds like you might have a one-armed configuration for load balancing. If your management VLAN interface is only used for management, and you only have the client VLAN interface for load balancing, then this would be a one-armed config. If this is indeed the case, then you would need to use either Policy-Based Routing to route the server response traffic back to the ACE rather than directly back to the client. Or, the more common solution is to configure source NAT as shown below:
access-list ANYONE line 10 extended permit tcp any any
rserver host SERVER_01
ip address 192.168.1.1
inservice
rserver host SERVER_02
ip address 192.168.1.2
inservice
serverfarm host REAL_SERVERS
rserver SERVER_01
    inservice
rserver SERVER_02
    inservice
class-map match-all VIP-3
2 match virtual-address 192.168.1.3 any
class-map type management match-any REMOTE_ACCESS
description remote-access-traffic-match
2 match protocol telnet any
3 match protocol ssh any
4 match protocol icmp any
policy-map type management first-match REMOTE_MGT
class REMOTE_ACCESS
    permit
policy-map type loadbalance first-match SLB_LOGIC
class class-default
    serverfarm REAL_SERVERS
policy-map multi-match CLIENT_VIPS
class VIP-3
    loadbalance vip inservice
    loadbalance policy SLB_LOGIC
    loadbalance icmp-reply active
    nat dynamic 1 vlan 20
interface vlan 10
description MANAGEMENT VLAN
ip address 172.16.51.11 255.255.255.0
access-group input ANYONE
service-policy input REMOTE_MGT
no shutdown
interface vlan 20
description CLIENT VLAN
ip address 192.168.1.10 255.255.255.0
service-policy input CLIENT_VIPS
nat-pool 1 192.168.1.100 192.168.1.100 netmask 255.255.255.0 pat
no shutdown
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254
Hope this helps,
Sean

ACE load balancing issue

Hi,
I have ACE module and 2 servers the problem i am facing is only one server is been serviced by ACE the other server is not getting much traffic at all.
One server gets hit most of the time like 3 pkts goes to server 1 and 1 pkt goes to server 2.
Could anyone tell me why is this issue that unequal load balancing is occoring on my device.
Thanks in advance.

here's the output of
sh serverfarm det
serverfarm : DNS, type: HOST
total rservers : 2
active rservers: 2
description : -
state : ACTIVE
predictor : ROUNDROBIN
failaction : -
back-inservice : 0
partial-threshold : 0
num times failover : 0
num times back inservice : 0
total conn-dropcount : 0
Probe(s) :
DNS_PROBE, type = DNS
----------connections-----------
real weight state current total failures
---+---------------------+------+------------+----------+----------+---------
rserver: DNS-118-1
10.0.0.1:0 8 OPERATIONAL 206 127901 1
max-conns : - , out-of-rotation count : -
min-conns : -
conn-rate-limit : - , out-of-rotation count : -
bandwidth-rate-limit : - , out-of-rotation count : -
retcode out-of-rotation count : -
load value : 0
rserver: DNS-118-2
10.0.0.2:0 8 OPERATIONAL 230 212332 4
max-conns : - , out-of-rotation count : -
min-conns : -
conn-rate-limit : - , out-of-rotation count : -
bandwidth-rate-limit : - , out-of-rotation count : -
retcode out-of-rotation count : -
load value : 0
here's the output of
sh service-policy L3L4_LOADB detail
Status : ACTIVE
Description: -----------------------------------------
Context Global Policy:
service-policy: L3L4_LOADB
class: CLASS_MAP
nat:
nat dynamic 1 vlan 118
curr conns : 325 , hit count : 340457
dropped conns : 5
client pkt count : 2697687 , client byte count: 179735431
server pkt count : 2694477 , server byte count: 535957631
conn-rate-limit : 0 , drop-count : 0
bandwidth-rate-limit : 0 , drop-count : 0
VIP Address: Protocol: Port:
10.0.0.3 tcp eq 53
10.0.0.3 udp eq 53
loadbalance:
L7 loadbalance policy: L7_LOADB
VIP Route Metric : 77
VIP Route Advertise : ENABLED-WHEN-ACTIVE
VIP ICMP Reply : ENABLED-WHEN-ACTIVE
VIP State: INSERVICE
curr conns : 325 , hit count : 340462
dropped conns : 5
client pkt count : 2697687 , client byte count: 179735431
server pkt count : 2694477 , server byte count: 535957631
conn-rate-limit : 0 , drop-count : 0
bandwidth-rate-limit : 0 , drop-count : 0
L7 Loadbalance policy : L7_LOADB
class/match : class-default
LB action: :
primary serverfarm: DNS
state: UP
backup serverfarm : -
hit count : 340457
dropped conns : 0

ACE Load Balance setup and testing - vip

Got a new ACE 4710 and am I new to the appliance. I am testing out a senario with load balancing between two servers. In testing when I ping the VIP ip address the replies I see are from the real server ip addresses. I am just wondering if this is the correct normal behavior or should I see the ping replies coming from the VIP ip address?
Thanks

Do you use the
    loadbalance vip icmp-reply active
command?
policy-map multi-match POL45
class VStest
    loadbalance vip inservice
    loadbalance policy L7SLBPOLtest
    loadbalance vip icmp-reply active

ACE load-balancing-Cookie problem

In our other load-balancing environments the load-balancer-cookie contains the encrypted (real) servername or ip-address.
We think it's the same on the cisco, for that reason it's in theory not possible, that there are two 'green'-cookies with different values in the same request.
There are only two possibilities how this could happen:
a) The healthmonitor (http_probe) fails, the loadbalancer 'thinks' that the realserver is down and redistributes the traffic.
But in that case we would expect, that the old cookie will be overwritten by the new one and not simply added to the http-header.
b) The predictor in the serverfarm chooses a new realserver within the same request.
If that is really the cause of that problem this would be bug in the cisco ace.
What we found out, is that the loadbalancer performs a 'Set-Cookie'-Operation an every request even if the client submits the cookie correctly.
For example:
GET /ips-opdata/scripts/jquery.js HTTP/1.1
Host: www.xxxxx.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Ubuntu/10.04 (lucid) Firefox/3.6.15
Accept: */*
Accept-Language: en-us,en;q=0.5
Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate
Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7
Keep-Alive: 115
Connection: keep-alive
Referer: http://www.xxxxx.com/
Cookie: green=R339366665; JSESSIONID=28D91FC6FD62A3921354BB36826294C4
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Set-Cookie: green=R339366665; path=/; expires=Tue, 29-Mar-2011 06:33:00 GMT
Server: Apache-Coyote/1.1
X-Powered-By: Servlet 2.4; JBoss-4.2.2.GA (build: SVNTag=JBoss_4_2_2_GA date=200710221139)/Tomcat-5.5
ETag: W/"72181-1298537508000"
Last-Modified: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 08:51:48 GMT
Content-Type: text/javascript
Content-Length: 72181
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:15:19 GMT
As you can see the cookies: green=R339366665 is transmitted from the client, but the loadbalancer does a Set-Cookie Operation of the same cookie once again. This is an unexpected behaviour.
We hope that this helps you to figure out the reason of the problem.

The cookie is sent by the ACE on each response to refresh the timeout value on the client. The value of the cookie doesn't change. This is the expected behaviour and shouldn't break anything in the application / browser.
For browser-based applications, don't forget to add the "browser-expire" parameter to your cookie-based stickyness config.

Regarding ACE load balancing

Hi,
I have one server application with two physical servers clustered with one virtual IP address . I have total six ip addresses for one server : details are given below
Cluster IP’s :
Node 1 :
NIC 1 : 10.10.x.x : physical IP address
NIC 2 : 172.16.x.x : heartbeat address used in between server
Node 2 :
NIC 1 : 10.10.x.x : physical ip address
NIC 2 : 172.16.x.x : heartbeat address used in between server
Cluster IP : 10.10.x.x : clustered IP address used to access server
SQL IP : 10.10.x.x : clustered IP address used to access SQL application .
now i want to achieve server load-balancing using ACE module. Please suggest to me fulfil this requirement. how to do this ?
whether i need to remove the virtual IP and directly bind two physical ip to ace virtual ip add.
How do i check ace server load-balancing configuration with live server .... do we have any tool to check the packet behaviour to confirm that load-balancing is happening properly in between two physical servers :
Please guide me and share the knowledge .....................

Hi Vinod,
You are correct. In order to achieve load-balancing with an ACE blade, you need to configure the addresses of the two severs separately. If you look at the documentation page on cisco.com for ACE (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6906/tsd_products_support_model_home.html) you will find sample configuration for the most commont topologies.
As for how to verify if the load-balancing is working correctly, you can use the command "show serverfarm ", which will list you all the servers in a serverfarm, along with the current and total connection numbers for each of them.

Ace load balancing, inservice/no inservice serverfarms

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for