CSS11500 vs microsoft load balancing service

Greeting
I have some experience in CSS11500 but, I have no knowledge on microsoft load balancing service.
now I would like to understand what benefit on both technoledge? specially for a microsoft application, such as sharepoint.
Any comments will be appreciated
Thanks in advance

Hi Julie,
The only input I can provide is that I have a customer who used Microsoft NLB to laodbalance a lot of Windows Terminal Servers and often had problems and uneven load sharing.
He then used the ACE4710 for the NLB and one comment was: I have never seen such an even load sharing on my WTS.
Our only problem is to have a probe for the WTS which is good enough. Currently wer just check for port 3389 but sometimes it does not catch a faulty server, so we would like to have a TCL script to do the job but have not yet been able to come up with one, so if anybody out there has an idea to a TCL script for WTS then I'd be glad to hear about it.
HTH, Ingolf

Similar Messages

How to remove farm account from Application Discovery and Load Balancer Service Application

Hello Community
    Using Sharpoint 2010 Server I think the reason
the User Profile Synchronization would stop is because somehow the farm
account was registered as a managed account. So I removed the farm
account from all services that ran under the farm account so that I could
run Remove-SPManagedAccount or click the Remove icon in manage service accounts
and then unregisted farm account as a managed account.
   But before I can run Remove-SPManagedAccount I need to remove it from one more
service account that uses the farm account which is:
    "Application Discovery and Load Balanceer Service Account".
    However, nothing seems to remove it from there.
    I tried :
"get-spserviceapplication | where {$_.TypeName -match "Application Discovery and Load Balancer Service Application"}
    and then
"stop-spserviceinstance "dde7fbef-b068-4687-bedb-f67230efab5a"
    amongst a host of other methods so that I could ultimately
unregister farm account as a managed account.
    But no matter what I do when I try to remove the farm account from Application Discovery
and Load Balancer Service Application
and then unregister the farm account as a managed account a message always says
"Application Discovery and Load Balancer Service Application" is using the farm account
as its service account.
    What can I do to free the farm account from Application Discovery and Load Balancer Service Application?
    Thank you
    Shabeaut

The Farm Account is always a Managed Account and can never be "unmanaged". You don't have to set the automatic password roll.
Trevor Seward
Follow or contact me at...
&nbsp&nbsp
This post is my own opinion and does not necessarily reflect the opinion or view of Microsoft, its employees, or other MVPs.

Bug with Network Load Balancing Services and SkipAsSource always reverting to true

Steps to reproduce:
Add an IP address to the cluster (2 nodes running Windows Server 2012) using the Network Load Balancing Manager
Using PowerShell set the SkipAsSource flag on the IP Address to true (Set-NetIpAddress -IpAddress 192.168.1.10 -SkipAsSource $true). The flag is correctly set.
Try to reverse the setting (Set-NetIpAddress -IpAddress 192.168.1.10 -SkipAsSource $false). Flag stays as true.
It appears as though Network Load Balancing Services is remembering the setting from someone.
Things I've tried all without success (in no particular order):
Removing the IP address from the cluster and adding it back in
Using PowerShell to remove the IP address and add it back in manually (on each host).Flag stays set as true on the 1st node but takes a second before it reverts back to true on the 2nd node.
Using netsh to remove the IP address and add it back in manually (on each host). Flag stays set as true on the 1st node but takes a second before it reverts back to true on the 2nd node.
Deleting each host from the cluster (one at a time), removing the registry keys CurrentControlSet\Services\WLBS and
Removing both hosts from the cluster
Restarting the hosts
Using processmon (sysinternals) to try and find a registry entry that might be set when SkipAsSource is set
Does anyone know:
How to resolve this issue? I'm guessing resetting the TCP/IP stack would work but that's a last resort as it requires an on sight visit to the datacentre.
Where the SkipAsSource flag it stored?
How to reset the master/global cluster config?
Thank in advance,
Antony

Hi Antony,
I am trying to involve someone familiar with this topic to further look at this issue.
There might be some time delay. Appreciate your patience.
Best Regards.
Steven Lee
TechNet Community Support

Does SLS support load balancing services?

Does SLS allow for load balancing of services? Such as iChat, Address Book, Calendar, Mail, Web, etc?
Right now I have four Mac Mini servers
Mac Mini 1 - Primary DNS, Open Directory Primary
Mac Mini 2 - Primary DNS, Open Directory Replicate
Mac Mini 3 - VPN, Mobile Access, File Sharing, Software Update Services, Address Book, iCal, and iChat.
Mac Mini 4 - Web / Mail
I want to get two more mac mini's to load balance #3 and #4. Meaning, if the server goes down or gets heavy load, it will start utilizing the other mac mini.
How can I set this up??

As for load balancing iAS has a component called Web-Cache which can be used for this.
For installation of iAS as per the OS you will find information at the folowing link:
http://otn.oracle.com/docs/products/ias/content.html
-- Mathew

CSS load balancing, service dependancy condition check

Hi,
I would like to seek some advice regarding the CSS's service configuration.
Is there a way to configure the CSS such that it check for the condition/status of a independant service (not involved in the load balancing algorithm) is alive/down (using service mode keepalive port/type), before deciding whether to/not to load balance to a group of services?
Senario is as follwows:
We process incoming HTTPS request and load balance to 2 HTTPS Servers (HTTPS service SSL1 and SSL2), on condition that a independent service (HTTPS service SSL3) is alive (using the keepalive type/port check in service mode).
If the independant service (HTTPS service SSL3) is not alive, remove the HTTPS Servers (HTTPS service SSL1 and SSL2) from the load balancing algorithm.
Thanks in advance for assistance
!************************** CIRCUIT **************************
circuit VLAN1
ip address 192.168.103.35 255.255.255.192
!************************** SERVICE **************************
service SSL1
ip address 192.168.103.53
protocol tcp
port 443
keepalive type tcp
keepalive port 443
active
service SSL2
ip address 192.168.103.54
protocol tcp
port 443
keepalive type tcp
keepalive port 443
active
? This is the service condition that CSS will check before deciding to/not to load balance to SSL1 and SSL2.
? If SSL3 is down, do not load balance to SSL1 and SSL2. If SSL3 is up, load balance to SSL1 and SSL2
service SSL3
ip address 192.168.103.55
protocol tcp
port 443
keepalive type tcp
keepalive port 443
active
!*************************** OWNER ***************************
owner CISCO
content L5Rule_SSL
vip address 192.168.103.37
application ssl
protocol tcp
port 443
url "/*"
add service SSL1
add service SSL2
active
!*************************** GROUP ***************************
group SSL
vip address 192.168.103.37
add destination service SSL1
add destination service SSL2
active

maybe this?
circuit VLAN1
ip address 192.168.103.35 255.255.255.192
ip virtual-router 10 priority 100
ip redundant-vip 10 192.168.103.37
ip critical-service 10 SSL3
if I'm not mistaken the vip 192.168.103.37 will stop working when the service SSL3 goes down. I'm not sure that this is what you want though...

Windows Load Balance Service - Static ARP

Hi,
We have a problem with WLBS. We have 2 windows 2000 servers connected to an Access layer 2950 switch. In the distribution layer we have 2 6509 with redundant MSFCs. The WLBS is configured in Multicast Mode
The problem in that when we put a static ARP entry on both MSFCs for virtual WLBS IP and WLBS MAC address, the processor utilization reaches to 80-95% of MSFC. Once we try to ping the mapped Unicast IP address, it partially times out and the switches responds poorly.
(arp ?Load Balance virtual-ip-address? ?Load Balance MAC address? arpa)
Any idea?
Thanking You,

Despite the problems you have been experiencing with the processor utilization, I agree with your choice going for the multicast mode.
The principle of the WLBS is that both (all?) the physical servers must see all the packets that are destined for the cluster. The individual servers then decide between themselves which frames to process and which to leave for the other guy. It can do this in multicast mode or in unicast mode.
In unicast mode, the servers respond to an ARP from the client (or router) with a virtual unicast MAC address. The client uses that address to send frames to the cluster. So why do they not get filtered by the switches in the normal way? The anwser is that the servers do not use that MAC address as source for their frames, but use their own addresses. The switches therefore never see frames sourced from the virtual MAC address, and so flood them throughout the VLAN. If you have a big VLAN, then that can cause scalability issues.
Now for multicast mode: when the client (or router) ARPs for the service address, the servers reply with a multicast MAC address. The clients (or router) then send their frames with that address as destination. The propagation though the VLAN is therefore controlled by IGMP snooping. Incidentally, some routers - including I presume the MSFC - will not believe an ARP response that gives a multicast MAC address. In my case, I had to configure the static ARP entry - IP to multicast MAC - in the router to make it work at all.
There is one other thing to say about the mutlicast scheme: the heartbeat between the servers is sent on the same multicast MAC address,but is not an IP etype, and is therefore not limited by IGMP snooping. It will be flooded to the entire VLAN. Look out for frames with etype 0x886F.
So, why are you having problems with the multicast scheme? My guess is that you have IGMP snooping, but AFAIK the 2950 supports IGMP snooping only in software rather than on the ASIC. You could switch off the IGMP snooping - that would relieve your processor, but would flood all you WLBS traffic.
I can suggest some possible aproaches to this problem:
1. Put up with the increased processor load.
2. Change your switches to something that supports IGMP snooping in hardware, or connect the WLBS servers only to switches that support this.
3. Use the unicast scheme, put your WLBS on a dedicated VLAN, and allow it to flood.
4. Use the unicast scheme and put CAM entries in all your switches for the virtual unicast address, with egress ports towards the WLBS servers.
Let me know how you solve this one, because I have the problem too, except that my servers are connected to switches that either support IGMP snooping in hardware, or do CGMP.
Kevin Dorrell
Luxembourg

Application Discovery and Load Balancer Service Application - Load Distribution

Hello,
We have a four server farm with no external load balancer. All of the servers are configured as WFEs.
Is there a console in central admin or in site settings where I can see which request goes to which server?
Many thanks,

Thank you Alex.
It has been set up this way ever since the application went live, why or who did this I do not know. The application is mainly used as a docu-share and there are a fair bit of users (~30,000) on it now. Bulk of the users access it once a month.
I think it probably is time to change this design as users have started complaining about slowness. We tried putting in an external load balancer, but it made things worse.

2 App servers in farm will be auto failover and load balanced?

Dear all,
We are going to setup following SharePoint farm:
2 WFE
2 APP
2 OWA
2 SQL with shared NAS
We will have hardware load balance in front of 2 WFE. From my understanding, the 2 WFE will detect which APP server is available and send the request there.
Hence, if APP1 is down, all traffic come from both WFE will be directed to APP2.
But I am not so sure about the part about load balance. If all the 8 server instance are working properly, the new request come from WFE2 will be sent to APP1 or APP2? Or it depends on which service application is asking?
In addition, we planned to run all search components on APP servers. But the 2 APP servers are both 16GB memory which is lower than suggested specification. I am considering whether I can assign all the search workload on APP2 while all the other on
APP1.
Thanks.
Mark

Here is a good artcicle on how SharePoint load balances service applications:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dtaylor/archive/2011/02/23/sharepoint-2010-service-application-load-balancer.aspx
Yes you can create APP02 as search server but then service apps will not be redundant , so it would be better to run all the service apps on both the servers and if you see any memory issues, then scale it later.
As per
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/651dba4d-8751-4bd8-9492-f2842b2e1177(v=office.15)#HW_Enterprise , 16 GB is recommended for application server so i think you should be okay unless there is very high load .
Amrita Talreja

Load balance business connectors

Hi experts,
We have 4 business connectors 4.7 version running on 5 different servers, Currently we are facing the problem of frequent restart on all of them. I would like to know is there any way we can load balance so that new Idoc processing request will go to the least used server. Also would like to know if increase in number of IDoc in flow will affect the performance of the business connectors.
Regards,
Suresh

Hi,
Please check the below from this article.
https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/exchange/en-US/749e64d6-9924-4150-bac0-ce4174896fb6/relaying-using-load-balancer?forum=exchange2010
For those who still monitor this thread,
The issue here is that the HLB is not configured to Use Source IP. In the Netscaler world, this is configured on a device or load balancer level and is referred to as USIP. (Use Source IP) If Source IP is not configured, the HLB will pass
the traffic to Exchange using the HLB's interface. You can configure this IP as an allowed IP address on your relay connector, but this is a big security risk as previously stated because all traffic that is routed through the HLB has rights to relay.
Concerning the network guy in PeterN22's post, open connections can be a problem and can cause port saturation if you are using an (*) as a wildcard on your RPC load balancing service. I have had much better luck, across all my load balanced deployments
(Citrix, Kemp, Cisco, etc.), when I use static port assignments on all load balanced services. For example:
SMTP - 25
RPC - 59532
OAB - 59533
HTTPS - 443
POP - 110
etc.
Exchange 2013 load balancing is now stateless and doesn't rely on Source IP, but this same issue with SMTP will occur if Source IP is not used. I know this is a recap of some of the other posts, but hopefully the additional information is helpful for
someone who may come across this post.

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]
================================================

Siebel Testing. Cookie handling, cookie load balancing and authentication.

We are delivering a PoC in a big Siebel customer and we are finding some issues.
Environment information is:
- Siebel testing, version 8.
- NTLM Windows authentication.
     When we create a Siebel Load script, recording works fine. Replaying the script, after adding the Authentication function, does not work
     When we create a Web Load Script with the same structure and business process, after adding the Authentication function, it works.
     Looking at the difference between Web and Siebel scripts, only difference are a couple of cookies that Web script considers and Siebel does not. This two cookies are added in the second call of the NTLM handshake requests (two requests with 401 http code and a final with a 200 http code). The application, in the first NTLM handshake request, ask the browser to add a couple of cookies that the browser (and OLT in a web load script) add. Siebel load script does not add/handle this cookies.
     Accordingly, the script works with web module but does not work with Siebel module.
Right now we only have two options to make Siebel work:
- Change the DNS address to point to a single node for the application, instead of pointing to the load balancing service. This way, cookies are not needed and the script does not fail.
- Add the cookies by hand. This way, cookie content is "hardcoded" and, so, it will not be useful for load balancing purposes, which lead us to previous bullet. Load testing using Siebel will not work load balanced.
I added a web script (works fine with no tweaking) and a Siebel script executed with normal configuration (does not work) and workaround (avoiding the load balancing cookies- it works).
Many thanks for the help,
Iván.
IM_Siebel_Second_Test.zip
Siebel web test.zip
Edited by: user9982485 on 03-Aug-2010 09:18

Álex,
Thank you a lot, I will call you related to other issue also. Thanks for the kind help!.
IMHO, it works or not depending on cookies added for load balancing. Siebel module does not specifically add these cookies, while web module does. If you delete the cookies from the web module, it stops working, so I guess the cookies are making/breaking the script.
I will send you the scripts, so you can have a look.
Thanks,
Iván.

Load Balancing TMG 2010

hi,
i use 2 tmg's with sp2.
no active directory, hance no tmg array.
i want to enable microsoft load balancing on the internal and external but i always get "RPC is not ..." although i have opened the correct ports.
i have managed to establish a load balance cluster on the 1st host on both internal and external nic's but no luck in joining the other host.
any suggestions ?
Regards,
Udi

Hi,
using NLB without TMG Integration is IMHO not a good idea. You doesn't have NLB bidirectional affinity and many more. The RPC error message in the NLB MMC is normal, because TMG blocks this type or RPC (DCOM) traffic, but NLB should work as expected.
You will not be able to manage NLB from the TMG Server itself:
"Another issue is using NLB manager on TMG. NLB manager uses DCOM to communicate between the nodes, and DCOM is not supported on TMG. Our recomendation is to use TMG UI to configure and monitor NLB clusters" - Source:
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/forefront/en-US/2a85732d-2c0b-418b-859e-3400623c043b/windows-server-2008-r2-sp1-breaks-tmg-nlb-cluster-the-rpc-server-is-unavailable
regards Marc Grote aka Jens Baier - www.it-training-grote.de - www.forefront-tmg.de - www.galileocomputing.de/3276?GPP=MarcGrote

Srv2008 r2, Load balancing causing sessions to Stack and halt logon

Hello all,
We have currently using Appv 4.6 sp3, across 14 terminal servers. These then have access to 2 app servers and also 2 bkr servers.
We are running a srv2008 r2 environment, and running a windows 7 user experience on the terminal servers.
We are running microsoft load balancing via a farm setup. The member of staff that set they system up has recently left and with limited documentation I am struggling a bit to get my head around why the stacking occurs
The problem we have come across is that the system work ok load balancing works a treat, then all of a sudden a user will come along try log on and will take longer than usual to connect there session. This is causing all users that try connecting
to be stacked behind this slower user logging on and so to a point where there could be 20 + people waiting to log on.
This causes us a huge problem as we can have almost 700+ use at a time on the thin client environment.
Is there a setting that can be set to stop this situation happening, ??
Thanks in advance
Lee

Hi Lee,
Does this issue occurs with all users at a time?
Do you have printer redirection enabled?
If yes, then please try below Hotfix and check the result.
Long logon time when you establish an RD session to a Windows Server 2008 R2-based RD Session Host server if Printer Redirection is enabled
http://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2655998
Hope it helps!
Thanks.
Dharmesh Solanki
Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help. If you have feedback for TechNet Support, contact [email protected]

Followup on return event from load balanced SO

Hi folks,
I had earlier posted a message about receiving a return event from an
asynchronous call to a Load Balanced Service Object.
It turns out that return events are handled specially and that the
sample provided will work just fine as is. In other words, the return event
is mapped to the load balanced copy that it was called on.
Thanks all of you who sent such interesting work arounds.
-John
John Jamison
Sage Solutions, Inc.
353 Sacramento Street, Suite 1360
San Francisco, CA 94111
415 392 7243 x 306
[email protected]

Hi folks,
I had earlier posted a message about receiving a return event from an
asynchronous call to a Load Balanced Service Object.
It turns out that return events are handled specially and that the
sample provided will work just fine as is. In other words, the return event
is mapped to the load balanced copy that it was called on.
Thanks all of you who sent such interesting work arounds.
-John
John Jamison
Sage Solutions, Inc.
353 Sacramento Street, Suite 1360
San Francisco, CA 94111
415 392 7243 x 306
[email protected]

CSS11500 vs microsoft load balancing service

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for