Cluster/load balance weblogic using L4 switch like Alteon

Question

Can I install weblogic as a standalone server on 2 or more server and
          cluster/load balance weblogic using a hardware balancer like Alteon Layer4
          switch (of course I will use a centralised storage to maintain a single copy
          of data which will eliminate syncronizing problem among servers)?
          BTW, Alteon can support persistent binding. The reason to use a Layer 4
          switch is that it is very fast, and this will make the application server
          layer transparent to client, the client can think this is a single server
          (it don't need to know whether there are 5 weblogic servers or 20 weblogic
          servers behind switch), and hardware are more reliable, sacalable and fast.
          I am not sure whether the normal weblogic clustered servers need to
          share/exchange info on the running memory, if it does, this approach will
          fail.
          

Answer 1

So My understanding is:
          Alteon with WL 6.0 can do load balancing for:
          entity bean
          stateless session bean
          but can't do load balancing for:
          stateful session bean (will persistent/sticky binding solve part of the
          problem except fail-over)
          in-memory replication
          am I right?
          Pao Wan
          "Don Ferguson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
          news:[email protected]...
          > It is possible to configure Alteon to understand the WebLogic 6.0 cookie
          format
          > and have a proxy-less cluster configuration that performs load balancing
          and
          > fail over of session state.
          >
          > It is also possible to configure Alteon's hardware-based SSL decryption
          for really
          > fast HTTPS processing.
          >
          > We are working on a white paper that describes how to configure Alteon for
          use
          > with WebLogic Server 6.0.
          >
          > -Don
          >
          >
          > Robert Patrick wrote:
          >
          > > Cameron,
          > >
          > > I believe that BEA tested their new proxy-less web clustering solution
          with
          > > load-balancing products from Alteon and several other vendors
          (Arrowpoint ?--
          > > which is now Cisco). However, it was my understanding that these
          products do
          > > not understand how to decrypt our cookies and extract IP addresses but
          rather
          > > these products are capable of doing sticky load balancing based on the
          Session
          > > ID contained in our cookie.
          > >
          > > If this is correct, then what this means is that when the primary server
          fails,
          > > the request will be routed to "some other server" in the cluster but not
          > > necessarily the one that holds the secondary copy of the user's session.
          The
          > > change in WLS 6.0 is that WLS will accept these misdirected requests and
          it will
          > > go out to the correct server and "migrate" the session to the server
          that
          > > received the request making that server the new primary (and
          regenerating the
          > > Session ID).
          > >
          > > I am sure if this is wrong that our product manager or one of our
          engineers will
          > > correct me (please?)...
          > >
          > > Hope this helps,
          > > Robert
          > >
          > > Cameron Purdy wrote:
          > >
          > > > Hi Robert,
          > > >
          > > > FWIW - There are several vendors (Primeon? Arrowpoint?) who claim to
          > > > understand WL cookies and parse the IPs out. (I haven't verified it
          myself
          > > > though.)
          > > >
          > > > --
          > > > Cameron Purdy
          > > > Tangosol, Inc.
          > > > http://www.tangosol.com
          > > > +1.617.623.5782
          > > > WebLogic Consulting Available
          > > >
          > > > "Robert Patrick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
          > > > news:[email protected]...
          > > > > There are not any hardware vendors (yet) that can understand
          WebLogic's
          > > > session
          > > > > ID. While you might be able to use the load balancer without the
          proxy on
          > > > 5.1,
          > > > > you would not be able to take advantage of in-memory replication
          failover
          > > > unless
          > > > > you only had two machines in the cluster. Like you said, everything
          will
          > > > work
          > > > > with 6.0 regardless of how the load balancer works (though you
          really,
          > > > really
          > > > > want to minimize the number of times the requests come into the
          wrong
          > > > server by
          > > > > utilizing sticky load balancing).
          > > > >
          > > > > Hope this helps,
          > > > > Robert
          > > > >
          > > > > Cameron Purdy wrote:
          > > > >
          > > > > > Rajesh,
          > > > > >
          > > > > > I meant that it would work in lieu of a proxy (such as Apache or
          NES)
          > > > with
          > > > > > 5.1, but only if both the hw load balancer and WL were set up to
          use
          > > > > > cookies. Some hw load balancers rely on IP and that doesn't
          work -- AOL
          > > > > > connections for example can change the source IP on the fly.
          Others
          > > > produce
          > > > > > their own cookies, that will work. Some even can use WL cookies
          and
          > > > parse
          > > > > > them to determine where to go. According to what I've read, with
          6.0 if
          > > > the
          > > > > > WL primary dies or for some other reason the request shows up at
          the
          > > > "wrong"
          > > > > > server, it will be handled correctly. That means you are pretty
          safe
          > > > with
          > > > > > hw load balancers and 6.0, almost regardless of the sticky
          > > > implementation
          > > > > > that they use.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > --
          > > > > > Cameron Purdy
          > > > > > Tangosol, Inc.
          > > > > > http://www.tangosol.com
          > > > > > +1.617.623.5782
          > > > > > WebLogic Consulting Available
          > > > > >
          > > > > > "Rajesh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
          > > > > > news:[email protected]...
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > Hi Cameron,
          > > > > > > Can you elaborate on how it would work with WL5.1 since no in
          memory
          > > > > > replication
          > > > > > > would happen if the servers are standalone.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > "Cameron Purdy" <[email protected]> wrote:
          > > > > > > >Yes, this will work fine with WL6. (WL5.1 will work fine as
          long as
          > > > > > cookies
          > > > > > > >are used by the load balancer.)
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > >--
          > > > > > > >Cameron Purdy
          > > > > > > >Tangosol, Inc.
          > > > > > > >http://www.tangosol.com
          > > > > > > >+1.617.623.5782
          > > > > > > >WebLogic Consulting Available
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > >"paowan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
          > > > > > > >news:[email protected]...
          > > > > > > >> Can I install weblogic as a standalone server on 2 or more
          server
          > > > and
          > > > > > > >> cluster/load balance weblogic using a hardware balancer like
          Alteon
          > > > > > Layer4
          > > > > > > >> switch (of course I will use a centralised storage to
          maintain a
          > > > single
          > > > > > > >copy
          > > > > > > >> of data which will eliminate syncronizing problem among
          servers)?
          > > > > > > >>
          > > > > > > >> BTW, Alteon can support persistent binding. The reason to use
          a
          > > > Layer
          > > > > > > >4
          > > > > > > >> switch is that it is very fast, and this will make the
          application
          > > > > > server
          > > > > > > >> layer transparent to client, the client can think this is a
          single
          > > > > > server
          > > > > > > >> (it don't need to know whether there are 5 weblogic servers
          or 20
          > > > > > weblogic
          > > > > > > >> servers behind switch), and hardware are more reliable,
          sacalable
          > > > and
          > > > > > > >fast.
          > > > > > > >>
          > > > > > > >> I am not sure whether the normal weblogic clustered servers
          need to
          > > > > > > >> share/exchange info on the running memory, if it does, this
          > > > approach
          > > > > > will
          > > > > > > >> fail.
          > > > > > > >>
          > > > > > > >>
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > >
          >