Exchange Performance load balancing

We have a single Exchange Server with 2 mailbox databases, MB01 and MB02.
Each user is split among the 2 databases. and Each database has its own hard drive location, e:\maildatabase\mb01 and f:\maildatabase\mb02. now the 2 drives are at 85% capacity and the server;s 32Gb memory is in 95-98% physical and commit memory.
I want to introduce a 2nd Server with same specs to reduce the load on the 1st, how do I go about this?
1. do I bring up the 2nd exchange server and move some mailbox over? and force users to only look for the 2nd?
2. Do I do DAG but it means only 1 server is active which would not help my cause
Note: I have 400 users and 78% are OWA users.

Hi MAS,
thanks for the suggestions, actually the log files are in a separate drive and the mailbox database as well.
Yes I am going to deploy another Exchange Server, my challenge is
1. do I split up the database even further into small database per department and spread the mailbox database between the 2 exchange?
Currently the 2 database are about 600GB each
break them into 300GB each and move 2 300GB to new server
Have certain IP/Subnet connect to either servers to reduce work load
DAG the Servers as a way to keep backup. However the resources required would have
dropped
These are just some of my thought,
Question are these doable and SMART?

Similar Messages

Exchange 2013 Load Balancing Question

Hey Everyone,
I have recently started building up my companies Exchange 2013 environment and ran into some questions that I can't seem to find clear answers for on Google.
First, a little bit about my set up:
2 CAS Servers
2 Mailbox Servers
Citrix NetScaler load balancing the external URL (Controlling all incoming ports 25, 80, 443, 587, 993, and 995) to both of my CAS servers
This is not doing SSL offloading, it's just forwarding encrypted traffic to the CAS servers
I have configured a DAG between the 2 mailbox servers and am able to actively move the database my user account is on between the 2 copies with outlook disconnecting / reconnecting in about 10 - 15 seconds of moving it.
My questions started when I saw what Outlook was filling in for the "Server" field once autodiscover set it up. I found this very strange server name in it: *** Email address is removed for privacy ***
Once I read up on it, I think i understand what it does. If i understand correctly, this weird URL is sort of like an old CAS array from Exchange 2010. When I started testing the failover is when I started running into issues.
When I shut down one of my mailbox servers, my outlook will lose connection and it won't come back. The mailbox database that my user account is on successfully failed over to the other DAG copy but outlook never correctly connects. I
believe this issue has something to do with the new CAS functions of Exchange 2013 since DAG works fine.
If I look at my "Connection Status" in Outlook, I see that there are several connections open. All of them have a Proxy server address of "exchange.domain.com" and out of the 3 that show up there, they are all pointed to
the weird URL mentioned above.
Whew, long post but let me summarize my questions below:
1) If exchange is configured to be fully redundant, why does my outlook disconnect when I shut down one of the servers?
2) What is the weird URL pointing to that I mentioned above that is showing in outlook?
3) How can I get outlook to correctly not lose it's connection when any 1 of the servers goes down?
Thanks,
Zac

Hi,
According to your description, it seems that the load balancer did not configure successfully.
I recommend you refer to the following article to configure the load balancer for Exchange 2013 :
http://blogs.vmware.com/vsphere/2012/11/load-balancing-using-vcloud-networking-and-security-5-1-edge.html
Hope this helps!
Thanks.
Niko Cheng
TechNet Community Support

Exchange 2010 - Load balancing transaction logs in a DAG

I have a single Exchange 2010 DAG. Within the DAG, I have two mailbox servers. I have 2 DB's mounted on server A, and 3 DB's mounted on server B.
The size and quantity of transaction logs on server A always seem to be larger. It might be the nature of the mailboxes on server A, but I was wondering if there is a tool or script to verify best practices for how the transaction logs should be configured.
Thanks
Ron

I have a single Exchange 2010 DAG. Within the DAG, I have two mailbox servers. I have 2 DB's mounted on server A, and 3 DB's mounted on server B.
The size and quantity of transaction logs on server A always seem to be larger. It might be the nature of the mailboxes on server A, but I was wondering if there is a tool or script to verify best practices for how the transaction logs should be configured.
Thanks
Ron
So one of the DBs is not replicated? Im not sure what you mean by "how the transaction logs should be configured".
You only real choices are disk location, whether you want to lag a copy or if you want to enable circular logging. Things that with 2 mailbox servers you wouldn't want do other than define the disk location. Otherwise, there isn't much to configure as far
as the logging.
Twitter!: Please Note: My Posts are provided “AS IS” without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied.

How does CEF perform equal and unequal cost load balancing?

hello
How does CEF perform equal and unequal cost load balancing?
thanks

Hello Wang,
it is only EIGRP that can perform load balancing over unequal cost links.
For equal cost links CEF allocates 16 buckets and maps them to the the physical links.
the result of a binary operation is used to associated a packet to an outgoing interface:
Source IP address EXOR DEstination IP Address EXOR hash
the hash is a seed that changes only at every reload.
Actually the last 4 bits are used so that each flow can be classified in one bucket.
then the outgoing interface is the one asscociated to the result of the exor operation.
Another way to see is that m bits are used so that 2^m is equal to N number of links (if N is even)
the rule is simple and pre-established
Hope to help
Giuseppe

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.

Cluster/load balance weblogic using L4 switch like Alteon

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.


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.
          > > > > > > >>
          > > > > > > >>
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > >
          >

Load balancing on zones

Hi everybody,
I have question about load balancing in zones. Can we perform load balancing on zones? If so is what are the pros and con in doing that?
FYI i am asking about native zones. Any help will be greatly appreciaed.
Thanks,
John

If you are running Sun Cluster, you can set up a scalable farm of zones or application. You can also use Load Balancing features within Sun Cluster:
[http://blogs.sun.com/SC/entry/how_to_use_the_load1|http://blogs.sun.com/SC/entry/how_to_use_the_load1]

To Load Balance or Not to Load Balance? ISE and F5 Big IP

Currently my team is debating whether to put our two ISE appliances (PSN nodes) behind our F5 load balancing deployment.
Our network is relatively small in size (5K users) with a small wireless deployment (4 Cisco controllers with 300 Access points). Network growth should remain relatively minimal over the coming years.
We will be rolling out wired Dot1X, followed by posture assessment and remediation. (BYOD is not an option).
On one hand, the Big IP features could make it easier for us to perform load balancing, maintenance and troubleshooting.
On the other hand, the Big IP adds another element of complexity into an already complex deployment. We already have the capability to load balance from the switches themselves. Load balancing for wireless should not be an issue as our deployment is very small and I expect it to remain so. Given the size of my environment, there seems to be relatively little to gain for the additional effort and potential pitfalls.
Would anyone care to share their honest opinion on this issue?
Thanks,
Phill

Load balancers are elegant and do their job nicely when it comes to distributing the load between servers. You already have one so I would suggest using it if you have the technical expertise to configure it.
With that being said, if your team is not 100% comfortable with F5 then you should definitely skip it. Instead, you can configure your WLCs to use Node #1 as primary and Node #2 as secondary Radius server and then your Switches to use Node #2 as primary and Node#1 as secondary.
I hope this helps!
Thank you for rating helpful posts!

CSS load balancing questions

I hope that someone can help with 2 simple (i think) CSS questions.
1. When configured properly for load balancing, should the CSS round-robin between servers or will it continue to use only one server until triggered by some event or parameter?
2. If 1 of 2 load balanced servers fails, how does load balancing proceed? Will it continue to try to load balance between the servers or will it give up on the failed server unitil some event or timeout occurs?
Thanks in advance,
Eliot

Hi Eliot,
The CSS can be configured to perform load balancing in a variety of different ways. Least connections, round robin, ACA etc. Each new connection through the CSS will be round robined over each of the servers in your server group.
If a server fails then the CSS will know it has failed through the use of keepalives (based on TCP connection, ICMP etc) and no longer send requests through to that server. Traffic associated with a previous connection to the failed server will be sent to on of the surviving servers. It is then up to the behavior of the application as to if the user experiences any disruption.
Hope this helps
Brett

Load balancing across multiple machines

I am looking for assistance in configuring Tuxedo to perform load balancing across
multiple machines. I have successfully performed load balancing for a service
across different servers hosted on one machine but not to another server that's
hosted on a different machine.
Any assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Hello, Christina.
Load balancing with multiple machines is a little bit different than
in the same machine. One of the important resource in this kind
of application is network bandwidth, so tuxedo tries to keep the
traffic among the machines as low as possible. So, it only
balance the load (call services in other machine) in case all the
services are busy in the machine where they are call.
I mean, if you have workstation clients attached only to one
machine, then tuxedo will call services in this machine untill
all servers are busy.
If you want load balancing, try to put one WSL in each machine,
and the corresponding configuration in your WSC ( with the | to
make tuxedo randomly choose one or the other) or spread your
native clients among all the machines.
And so, be carefull with the routing!
Ramón Gordillo
"Christina" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
I am looking for assistance in configuring Tuxedo to perform load balancing
across
multiple machines. I have successfully performed load balancing for a
service
across different servers hosted on one machine but not to another server
that's
hosted on a different machine.
Any assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.

MPLS Load Balancing/Sharing with TE or CEF or Both?

So I am just playing around in GNS3 trying to set up multiple ECMP links between to P routers like this;
CE1 -- PE1 -- P1 == P2 -- PE2 -- CE2
(There are actually four links between P1 & P2!)
I have set up a pseudoswire xconnect from PE1 to PE2 so CE1 & 2 can ping each other on the same local subnet range. That works just fine.
My question is this:
I have configured "ip load-sharing per-packet" on each of the four interfaces on P1 and P2 that are facing each other (I know per-packet balancing is frowned upon but lets not talk about that right now!) and this works, traffic is distributed across all links (I can see with packet captures in GNS3).
Where does "ip load-sharing per-packet" fit in to the chain of events with regards to MPLS and CEF etc?; So, with MPLS enabled everywhere the two P routers are forwarding based on labels and not IP address. With MPLS enabled, does this command force the P routers to load-balance each MPLS frame as it comes in, round-robbin'ing the ingress frames across all links, the same as it would if it were a plain IP packet? So the command is ignorate of the kind of traffic being used? Or is the P router looking down into the MPLS frame for the IP in the IP packet?
Also, in order to get the same sort of performance boost you get from per-packet load balancing, seeing as I am using MPLS here, should I be using some francy MPLE TE to do this instead of that interface sub-command?
If I remove that command, I seem to always use link 2 for sending traffic towards P2 from P1, and link 3 for receiving the return traffic from P2 to P1. This is presumably because the ICMP packets have nothing to hash on except the source and destination IP addresses, so they always hash to the same physical links. Without using that command how else can I make use of the four links?

Hello Jwbensley,
first of all,
"ip load-sharing per-packet" is not a viable option as it causes out of order issues.
Real world devices perform load balancing based on the second (more internal ) label value so to achieve some load balancing for example multiple pseudowires must be defined between the same pair of PE nodes.
L3 VPN use different internal labels for different customer prefixes of the same VRF site ( unless some special command is used to say use one label per VRF site)
>> f I remove that command, I seem to always use link 2 for sending traffic towards P2 from P1, and link 3 for receiving the return traffic from P2 to P1
This is the expected behaviour in this scenario.
With MPLS TE you can achieve results similar to the use of multiple pseudowires /LSPs : forms of load sharing not true load balancing. In all cases in MPLS world flow based and not per packet
Hope to help
Giuseppe

Load Balancing 2012 R2 Session Host Collection with External Network Load Balancer

Hi,
We are moving from a 2008 R2 Remote Desktop session host deployment to 2012 R2. Previously, we used our Kemp hardware load balancer to distribute load between RDSH servers. We had a connection broker deployed so that if an existing disconnected session was
detected during the initial connection, the user was directed back to that session.
In 2012 R2, we planned to again used the Kemp load balancer to main high availability for our RDSH collection, but are experiencing strange issues. It seems that the RD Connection Broker is also performing load balancing--the result being that initial connections
to the RDSH collection may go to one RDSH server with the least connections through the Kemp, but then be redirected to a different RDSH server by the broker, even when there is no existing session for the user on that second server.
Our question is: Should we not be using the Kemp balancer at all (how would this work)? Or should we disable load balancing by the connection broker (if so...how)?
Further complicating our redirection issue with that the RDSH servers have multiple interfaces--one with public addresses and others with private. The connection broker seems to abritrarily pick among the destination RDSH server's available IP addresses
for the redirection and trying to redirect to a private address will fail. We think we have worked around this by connecting to each RDSH server from a 2008 R2 server's RDSH Configuration console and choosing just the public adapter under the Network Adapters
tab--is there no way to access this setting in 2012 R2?
Thanks in advance!
Matthew

Hi Matthew,
As you are most likely already aware, inn Remote Desktop Services 2012 / R2 the Connection broker uses round robin DNS to load balance.
To simplify things I would recommend that you let the connection broker load balance the sessions and use the KEMP to Load balance the RDweb and Gateway servers.
Have a look at the following articles:
http://ryanmangansitblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/create-a-rdwa-farm-using-a-kemp-load-balancer/
http://ryanmangansitblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/31/rds-2012-configuring-a-rd-gateway-farm/
http://ryanmangansitblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/load-balance-rds2012-rdwa-and-rdgw-using-sub-interfaces-on-kemps-loadmaster/
As you have mentioned that you are migrating from a 2008R2 configuration, have a look at the following article:
http://ryanmangansitblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/publish-rds-2008r2-desktop-on-rds-2012/
Ryan Mangan | [email protected] | Help keep the forums tidy, if this has helped please mark it as an answer

Load balancing across multiple paths to Internet

Hello,
I have a 2821 router. Currently, I have two bonded T-1 circuits to the Internet.
I would like to add a DSL circuit to augment the T1s. I would also like to load balance across all of the circuits. Currently, IOS performs inherent load balancing for the T1 circuits. The DSL circuit is from a different provider than the T1s.
The T1s are coming from a local ISP that runs no routing protocols within their infrastructure. (They run static routes and rely on the upstream provider for BGP.) The DSL provider is a national telecom carrier.
What is the best way to perform load balancing for this scenario?

Here is the answer (sort of) for anyone reading this post with the same question:
No matter which way I choose to do it, the trick is to have the local ISP subnet advertised via BGP through both pipes. The national telecom DSL provider will not advertise a /20 subnet down a DSL pipe. (Ahh, why not? =:)
Had the secondary pipe been a T-1,T-3, or other traditional pipe, I could have used a load balancer like a BigIP, or FatPipe device or possibly CEF within the IOS.
Case closed. Thanks to everyone that took a look.
Doug.

Cisco CSS 11503 Arrowpoint/Load Balance question

I am troubleshooting an issue with my 11503. I am running version 07.40.0.04. I have it configured as follows:
content upcadtoa-rule
    add service cadtoa-wls1-e0
    add service cadtoa-wls1-e1
    add service cadtoa-wls2-e0
    add service cadtoa-wls2-e1
    add service cadtoa-wls3-e0
    add service cadtoa-wls3-e1
    add service cadtoa-wls4-e0
    add service cadtoa-wls4-e1
    add service cadtoa-wls5-e0
    add service cadtoa-wls5-e1
    add service cadtoa-wls6-e0
    add service cadtoa-wls6-e1
    arrowpoint-cookie expiration 00:00:15:00
    protocol tcp
    port 8001
    advanced-balance arrowpoint-cookie
    redundant-index 2
    vip address 172.30.194.195 range 2
    arrowpoint-cookie name TOA
    active
However, the load-balancing across the servers does not seem to be doing much balancing. One of those servers is getting hit with 5 times as much traffic as another and another server is lucky to get a connection at all. With the cookie expiration set, one would think that this would all balance out over time.
I just came across this information from Cisco and I am wondering if it is relevant:
If you configure a balance or advanced-balance method on a content rule that requires the TCP protocol for Layer 5 (L5) spoofing, you should configure a default URL string, such as url "/*". The addition of the URL string forces the content rule to become an L5 rule and ensures L5 load balancing or stickiness. If you do not configure a default URL string, unexpected results can occur.
In the following configuration example, if you configure a Layer 3 (L3) content rule with an L5 balance method, the CSS performs L5 load balancing, but will reject UDP packets.
content testing
vip address 192.168.128.131
add service s1
balance url
active
The balance url method is an L5 load-balancing method in which the CSS must spoof the connection and examine the HTTP GET content request to perform load balancing. The CSS rejects the UDP packet sent to this rule because a UDP connection cannot be L5. Though the CSS allows this rule configuration, its expected behavior would be more clear if you promote the rule to L5 by configuring the url "/*" command.
In the next example, if you configure an L3 content rule with an L5 advanced-balance method, L5 stickiness will not work as expected.
content testing
vip address 192.168.128.131
add service s1
advanced-balance arrowpoint-cookie
active
The advanced-balance arrowpoint-cookie method causes the CSS to spoof the connection, however, the CSS still marks it as an L3 rule. Thus, the CSS does not insert the generated cookie and the rule defaults to L3 stickiness (sticky-srcip). You must configure a URL like url "/*" to promote this rule to L5, ensuring that L5 stickiness works as expected.
Thanks in advance for any help you can give. The thing is not down, it is just balancing strangely causing application performance issues.
James

Hey James,
You will need to suspend the content rule in order to add the url statement. This will cause a quick downtime until the content rule is activated again. I have shown below the commands to add the statement. Perhaps you can create your commands in a Notepad file, then paste them all in so they execute quickly to minimize your downtime:
content MY-SITE
    vip address 10.201.130.140
    port 80
    protocol tcp
    add service MY-SERVER
    active
CSS11503# config t
CSS11503(config)# owner TEST
CSS11503(config-owner[TEST])# content MY-SITE
CSS11503(config-owner-content[TEST-MY-SITE])# url "/*"
%% Attribute may not be modified on active rule
CSS11503(config-owner-content[TEST-MY-SITE])# suspend
CSS11503(config-owner-content[TEST-MY-SITE])# url "/*"
CSS11503(config-owner-content[TEST-MY-SITE])# active
CSS11503(config-owner-content[TEST-MY-SITE])# exit
CSS11503(config-owner[TEST])# exit
CSS11503(config)# exit
CSS11503# show run
content MY-SITE
    vip address 10.201.130.140
    add service MY-SERVER
    port 80
    protocol tcp
   url "/*"       <--------
    active
Hope this helps,
Sean

Load Balancing Oracle BI Presentation Server with OC4J

Hello All,
Is there a way to perform Load Balancing Oracle BI Presenation Server the way we do with IIS (defining in ISAPIConfig.XML file)?
I am looking some pointers towards Clustering/Load Balancing Oracle BI Presentation Servers using OC4J not IIS.
Thank you.

Thanks , the Oracle BI Presentation Server is running now ,but still the oc4j display the below error :-
C:\OracleBI\oc4j_bi\bin>oc4j.cmd -start
Starting OC4J from C:\OracleBI\oc4j_bi\j2ee\home ...
10/05/06 13:58:31 Error initializing server: /C:/OracleBI/oc4j_bi/j2ee/home/conf
ig/server.xml, Fatal error at line 1 offset 1 in file:/C:/OracleBI/oc4j_bi/j2ee/
home/config/server.xml: .<Line 1, Column 1>: XML-20108: (Fatal Error) Start of r
oot element expected.
10/05/06 13:58:31 Fatal error: server exiting

Exchange Performance load balancing

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for