Load balance servers with 3560?
Here is my scenario...
I have two servers that are both connected to a single 3560 (SMI).
These two servers are in a primary/secondary relationship. Right now, if the primary server goes down - we need to manually configure the secondary server to take over.
I have two questions...
What is the best way to set up fault tolerance with these devices, so the secondary server will automatically kick in if the primary goes down?
In addition to that, is there any type of load balancing feature we can use on this 3560...so both the primary/secondary servers can run at the same time?
Ideally, we would like communication to the second server kick in when the link to the primary server gets too congested.
your best bet is to use IOS SLB or a content switch such as the cisco CSS series.
please see the following links for more info on ciscos CSS and SLB capabilities:
content switching (CSS) -
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns340/ns394/ns50/ns254/networking_solutions_package.html
SLB - (example of use)
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/modules/ps2706/products_configuration_example09186a0080093de3.shtml
Similar Messages
-
Hi ,
If we have a specific server say 10.10.10.10 (abc.co.in) on which we are working, Then under RZ12 we make the following entry as :
LOGON GROUP INSTANCE
parallel_generators abc.co.in_10 ( Lets assume : The instance number is 10 )
Now in SM59 under ABAP Connections , I am giving the following technical settings:
TARGET HOST abc.co.in
IP address 10.10.10.10
Instance number 10
Now if we have a scenario of load balancing servers with following server details (with all servers on different instance numbers ) :
10.10.10.11
10.10.10.13
10.1010.10
10.10.10.15
In this case how can we make the RZ12 settings and SM59 settings such that we don't have to hardcode any IP Address.
If the request is redirected to 10.10.10.11 and not to 10.10.10.10 , in that case how will the settings be.
Regards,
SHUBHAMHi,
No one using FMS behind a load balancer? No one using RTMPT? -
Does anyone have a recommended network, hardware and software configuration guide for a Portal installation running with multiple gateways load balanced (ie one URL) that talk to multiple servers?
David,
We've used Resonate (software) to load balance the gateways. It allows
you to group all the gateways under 1 virtual URL and load balance the
incoming connections over each gateway depending on the rules that you
define in Resonate. Look in the SUN portal whitepapers there is one that
talks about it specifically.
As far as load balancing the calls to the portals, the gateways will
automatically load balance across all the portals that they know about
using a simple round-robin rotation. You may be able to use Resonate in
front of the portals but you may need to activate persistance within
Resonate to ensure that the user always ends up on the portal that he
established his initial connection on (if you want that), check with Sun
on this one.
David Broeren wrote:
Recommended configuration for load balanced Portal with load balancer,
multiple gateways and multiple servers.
Does anyone have a recommended network, hardware and software
configuration guide for a Portal installation running with multiple
gateways load balanced (ie one URL) that talk to multiple servers?
Try our New Web Based Forum at http://softwareforum.sun.com
Includes Access to our Product Knowledge Base! -
SIP load balancing issue with ACE 4710
SIP Load balancing Issue with ACE 4710
I have a Cisco ace 4710 with vesion Version A4(2.2). i configued simple SIP load balancing first without stickiness. without stikeiness we are having a problem because bye packet at the was not going to the same server all the time that left our port in used even though user hang up the phone. its happen randmly. i have a total 20 licenced ports and its fill out very quickly. so i dicided to use the stickiness with call-ID but still same issue. below is the config
rserver host CIN-VOX-31
ip address 172.20.130.31
inservice
rserver host CIN-VOX-32
ip address 172.20.130.32
inservice
serverfarm host CIN-VOX
probe SIP-5060
rserver CIN-VOX-31
inservice
rserver CIN-VOX-32
inservice
sticky sip-header Call-ID VOX_SIP_GROUP
timeout 1
timeout activeconns
replicate sticky
serverfarm CIN-VOX
class-map match-all CIN_VOX_L4_CLASS
2 match virtual-address 172.22.12.30 any
class-map match-all CIN_VOX_SIP_L4_CLASS
2 match virtual-address 172.22.12.30 udp eq sip
policy-map type loadbalance sip first-match CIN_VOX_LB_SIP_POLICY
class class-default
sticky-serverfarm VOX_SIP_GROUP
policy-map multi-match GLOBAL_DMZ_POLICY
class CIN_VOX_SIP_L4_CLASS
loadbalance vip inservice
loadbalance policy CIN_VOX_LB_SIP_POLICY
loadbalance vip icmp-reply
class CIN_VOX_L4_CLASS
loadbalance vip inservice
loadbalance policy CIN_VOX_LB_SIP_POLICY
loadbalance vip icmp-reply
interface vlan 20
description VIP_DMZ_VLAN
ip address 172.22.12.4 255.255.255.192
alias 172.22.12.3 255.255.255.192
peer ip address 172.22.12.5 255.255.255.192
access-group input PERMIT-ANY-LB
service-policy input GLOBAL_DMZ_POLICY
could you please help me on this...
thanks
Rakesh PatelI mean there should be one more statement-
class-map type sip loadbalance match-any CIN_VOX_LB_SIP_POLICY
match sip header Call_ID header-value sip:
and that will be called under-
policy-map multi-match GLOBAL_DMZ_POLICY
class CIN_VOX_SIP_L4_CLASS
loadbalance vip inservice
loadbalance policy CIN_VOX_LB_SIP_POLICY
loadbalance vip icmp-reply
is that missing in your config ? -
Load-balancing issues with iPlanet and multiple clusters
We're in performance test of a large-scale clustered deployment based on WLS 5.1sp10.
Due to scalability/functionality issues, some of which we've seen firsthand and
some of which we've been informed of by associates as well as BEA representatives,
we've chosen to implement multiple clusters with a maximum of three nodes each.
These clusters will be fronted by a web server tier consisting of iPlanet servers
using the proxy plugin.
Due to hardware constraints (both in test and in production), however, we've configured
the iPlanet servers to route across the multiple clusters. In our test environment,
for instance, we've got a single iPlanet server routing across two 3-node clusters,
and the configuration in obj.conf is as follows:
<Object name="application" ppath="*/application">
Service fn="wl-proxy" \
WebLogicCluster="clusterA_1:9990,clusterB_1:9991,clusterA_2:9990,clusterB_2:9991,clusterA_3:9990,
clusterB_3:9991" \
CookieName="ApplicationSession"
</Object>
Our issue is that the load-balancing doesn't appear to work across the clusters.
We're seeing one cluster get about 90% of the load, while the other receives
only 10%.
So, the question (finally!) is: Is this configuration correct (i.e., will it
work according to the logic of the proxy plugin), and is it appropriate for this
situation? Are there other alternative approaches that anyone can recommend?
Thanks in advance,
cramerI use weblogic6.1 with sp2+windows 2000.I develop a web application and deploy
it to cluster.Through HttpClusterServlets proxy of weblogic I found that a server
in cluster almost get 95% of requests but another only get 5% of requests.Why???
I don't set any special parameter.And the weight of the two clustered server is
equal.I use round-robin arithmetic.
Thanks!
"cramer" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
We're in performance test of a large-scale clustered deployment based
on WLS 5.1sp10.
Due to scalability/functionality issues, some of which we've seen firsthand
and
some of which we've been informed of by associates as well as BEA representatives,
we've chosen to implement multiple clusters with a maximum of three nodes
each.
These clusters will be fronted by a web server tier consisting of iPlanet
servers
using the proxy plugin.
Due to hardware constraints (both in test and in production), however,
we've configured
the iPlanet servers to route across the multiple clusters. In our test
environment,
for instance, we've got a single iPlanet server routing across two 3-node
clusters,
and the configuration in obj.conf is as follows:
<Object name="application" ppath="*/application">
Service fn="wl-proxy" \
WebLogicCluster="clusterA_1:9990,clusterB_1:9991,clusterA_2:9990,clusterB_2:9991,clusterA_3:9990,
clusterB_3:9991" \
CookieName="ApplicationSession"
</Object>
Our issue is that the load-balancing doesn't appear to work across the
clusters.
We're seeing one cluster get about 90% of the load, while the other
receives
only 10%.
So, the question (finally!) is: Is this configuration correct (i.e.,
will it
work according to the logic of the proxy plugin), and is it appropriate
for this
situation? Are there other alternative approaches that anyone can recommend?
Thanks in advance,
cramer -
Load Balancing Problem with WLS6.1
Hi,
I have 4 Instances of Weblogic servers two instance per box with Clustered. The
admin server is running in the first box. While stress testing it seems all the
loads are going to one instance and other instances are almost idle.
In the Secondary Group, i have given the name of the other instance on the same
server. I'm running weblogic in Solaris with SP3.
Can anyone suggest why loadbalancing doesn't work.
Typically, load balancing will work unless there is a problem with the
clusters seeing each other. Therefore first make sure that the managed
server has joined the cluster.
Other things to look at are the __WebLogicBridgeConfig (see WLS plugin
documents) to confirm that there is a primary and secondary.
The above assumes Servlet load balancing, for objects check the
deployment descriptors.
Diwan Mohideen wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have 4 Instances of Weblogic servers two instance per box with Clustered. The
> admin server is running in the first box. While stress testing it seems all the
> loads are going to one instance and other instances are almost idle.
>
> In the Secondary Group, i have given the name of the other instance on the same
> server. I'm running weblogic in Solaris with SP3.
>
> Can anyone suggest why loadbalancing doesn't work.
-
Load balancing problem with CSS11503
Hello all,
We have two web servers that are being load balanced with this configuration on two CSS11503 with IOS version 7.20 Build 206;
content Web
add service web1
add service web2
vip address 10.1.4.4
protocol tcp
port 80
url "/*"
advanced-balance sticky-srcip-dstport
active
When we try and access the web servers from client workstation using the URL on Internet explorer 6.0 and get authenticated through the login window; we get error 12031. Error 12031 means " ERROR_INTERNET_CONNECTION_RESET The connection with the server has been reset. "
On refresh the error goes away.
If we bypass the content switches by accessing any of the servers using server name; the error does not appear. The problem seems to be related to the load balancing.
Any suggestions?the problem is probably due to CSS sending an HTTP redirect with the RESET flag when you send multiple request inside the same connection.
To avoid the proble, do a 'no url' under your content rule.
There is absolutely no need to specify the url since you do stickyness based on source ip address.
Regards,
Gilles. -
ACE: load balancing servers using DMZ ports on FWSM
devices; (2 core with the ff config)
6500
fwsm
idsm
msfc
SETUP;
Servers are connected to the dmzs on the core
REQUIREMENT;
to load balance the servers
QUESTION;
Using the ACE module, is it possibe to load balance the servers which are connected to the port which is configured as DMZ?
Thanksdoes not matter where the servers are connected.
However, be aware that the flows from client to server needs to go through the loadbalancer BUT also the flows server to client.
So, you should be careful where you attach the ACE module.
The easier would be to attach to the DMZ as well between the FW and the servers.
Gilles. -
I get the process of load balancing outbound traffic, and even protocol binding so that servers send out traffic only on a specific WAN port. What I do not get is how to load balance INBOUND traffic also to those servers and ensure that the servers response goes out on the interface that it originated.
I have two 50mb internet connections from different ISPs. Each with a static IP address.
The web server is on a private IP address with appropriate forwarding.
The web server IP address is bound to WAN2 which is the DNS address of the web server.
All works perfect. Outboud traffic from the web server exits from the appropriate WAN port while residual traffic is load balanced.
Now, I want to add an A record to the DNS for the web server so that INBOUND traffic ot he web server is balanced and providing a redundant service. However, the protocol binding should not allow any outbound connection through WAN1. Right?
So my question is, is this setup impossible? Do we forget the protocol binding and hope that the outbound responses from the server exits through the originating port? Is there another method? Or, do I need a more advanced router?
I do not even want to consider DMZ even as this is impossible since I am utilizing both ports as WAN ports. Anyone have any suggestions to do this?
Thanks
MarkSorry I misunderstood.
IMO for this to work on an LRT224 you would need:
A second network adapter in the Server and the Server configured to answer requests on both NIC's
Protocol Binding the second Server NIC to the other WAN port
A DNS Hosting Service that support DNS Round Robin or you would run your own DNS Server with Round Robin DNS capabilities
These days I'm seeing DNS propagation with namesecure only taking a few hours instead of the advertised 96hrs.
Please remember to Kudo those that help you.
Linksys
Communities Technical Support -
Load balance DSP with DSPControl
We need balancing and failover in our calls to the DSP from WLI. The networking guys setup an F5 hardware load balancer to do this, but t3 connections are not working.
Questions:
1. Is there a known configuration of F5 that will work with t3 protocol?
2. Can the DSP control work over another protocol, such as http, without loss of functionality? If so, how do I set that up?
3. Is there a recommended approach to what we are trying to do?
Thanks!
JeffJeff - you have a case open and both you and the customer support guy are chasing this down as and ALDSP and WLI issue. It's not. The problem you have occurs in creating an InitialContext when giving the URL of the load-balancer. Look in the stack trace - there is no ALDSP - just your code and WLS. You will get better results if you investigate it as such. For instance - if you post your question on WLS/EJB/RMI forum - the right people will see it. ( deleted remark about creating a CR)
Also - from the case description - it's not clear why you have the load-balancer there. It sounds like the ejb is hosted on the same machine as the client (it mentions that it works fine if you use localhost instead of the load-balancer ... maybe that was just something you tried). Also the WLS EJB stubs do load-balancing (and fail-over, too) so again I'm not sure of the purpose of the hardware load-balancer (if you give a good reason and it all makes sense, it's easier to diagnose).
Also posted on the case is a forums.bea.com posting that says you need to set the ejb server's "external server address" - the ejb stubs report the address that the clients should use for calling them - normally it is their own address - but if you have a load-balancer in between - they should be using the address of the load-balancer.
Also posted on the case is a reference to a CR about problems using a load-balancer when the servers have different port numbers. I didn't read the details on that.
Please escalate your case with customer support.
- MIke
Edited by: mikereiche on Nov 14, 2008 10:02 AM -
Load Balance TMG with Cisco CSS
I am working with a Customer that is using Cisco CSS to load balance Microsoft TMG 2010.
From the Microsoft TMG, I can see the https probes hitting the TMG Servers. The TMG 2010 recongnizes that the Cisco is trying to establish a 3-way handshake and is dropping every 3rd connection with the following error: "non-SYN packet was dropped because it was sent by a source that does not hane an established connection with the Forefron TMG computer." Since the Microsoft Forefront TMG 2010 Server is Stateful packet inspection firewall, what is the best load balance method for this service? TCP or even worst ICMP.
Below is a snipet of the configuration:
Thank You
Avery
CSS-A# show service Server1-ssl
Name: Server1-ssl Index: 70
Type: Local State: Alive
Rule ( x.x.x.x TCP 443 )
Session Redundancy: Enabled
Redundancy Global Index: 206
Redirect Domain:
Redirect String:
Keepalive: (SSL-443 5 3 5 )
Keepalive Encryption: Disabled
Last Clearing of Stats Counters: 03/05/2012 16:33:14
Mtu: 1500 State Transitions: 4
Total Local Connections: 0 Total Backup Connections: 0
Current Local Connections: 0 Current Backup Connections: 0
Total Connections: 0 Max Connections: 65534
Total Reused Conns: 0 Weight Reporting: None
Weight: 1 Load: 2
CSS-A#
CSS-A# show service Server2-ssl
Name: Server2-ssl Index: 71
Type: Local State: Alive
Rule ( x.x.x.x TCP 443 )
Session Redundancy: Enabled
Redundancy Global Index: 207
Redirect Domain:
Redirect String:
Keepalive: (SSL-443 5 3 5 )
Keepalive Encryption: Disabled
Last Clearing of Stats Counters: 03/05/2012 16:53:49
Mtu: 1500 State Transitions: 6
Total Local Connections: 0 Total Backup Connections: 0
Current Local Connections: 0 Current Backup Connections: 0
Total Connections: 0 Max Connections: 65534
Total Reused Conns: 0 Weight Reporting: None
Weight: 1 Load: 2Hi,
It would good to have a capture from the server itself, the TCP keepalive is really simple, as you explained, it is just a 3-way-handshake on port 443.
The CSS is going to use it's vlan IP to generate this keepalive.
So if the server is dropping the connection, it would be good to se the actual behavior of the keepalive.
ICMP is just a ping, and lets say port 443 is not longer open on the server, at the point that the CSS gets the ICMP reply back from the server, the service is going to remain as alive, but the traffic is not going to work, so ICMP is not a good option.
Thanks! -
CISCO Load Balancing Mechanism with SAP
Hello Experts,
Explain me the steps How CISCO Load balancing Mechanism works with SAP Enterprise Portal?
If anyone implemented and achieved the same,please explain me the steps to follow from Initial Stage to end of implementation.
Or If you have any documentation on this just share with me to my google id kekarthick or point me to the particular link.
I have seen the below SAP help which is somewhat helpful.
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04s/helpdata/en/d3/e12840d89d185de10000000a1550b0/frameset.htm
I would like to know how CISCO will connect to Java Dispatcher.
And explain me the steps to follow to implement External Facing Portal using Cisco Loadbalancer.
This should be achieved in Unix and Windows 2003 environment.
Any idea?
Regards,
Karthick Eswaran
Edited by: Karthick Eswaran on May 21, 2008 12:40 AMHello Karthick,
let's say you have 2 servers for your portal:
host1 -> e.g. DB, SCS + CI --> http://host1.my.company:50000/irj/portal
host2 -> DI --> http://host2.my.company:50000/irj/portal
Now you can implement an CISCO hardware load balancer. You have to connect it to your network and reserve one port and another ip adress of it for the portal.
After that you have to add the ip adress of the both servers (host1+host2) to this port, so that the CISCO load balancer knows to which servers it has to forward the incoming connections.
If you use DNS in your company you can now map a more user-friendly name to the CISCO port (e.g. http://portal.my.company:50000/irj/portal) and distribute this link to the users of the portal.
When they connect to the portal via this link the CISCO load balancer will forward the request to one of the configured servers (host1 or host2) depending which one is online and/or the load of them.
I hope I understood your question right and my answer helps a little.
Regards,
Norman Schröder -
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 -
Hardware clustering/load balancing/failover with Tomcat
Hello forum!
I recently bought a Cisco 1801, and it sure is capable! Anyhow, I've got a hobby website that is getting a fair bit of traffic - approaching too much for one node to handle and it's time to start thinking about distributing the load.
I'd like to do a little clustering of server nodes running Apache Geronimo, which is J2EE running atop Apache Tomcat. For the sake of keeping things generic, let's just call it Tomcat because it configures the same way.
I do not run Apache HTTP Server as a proxy, I only run Tomcat directly connected to the internet. I do this for performance reasons.
Anyhow, I'm wondering if any of you evil geniuses could suggest a way that I could cluster Tomcat nodes directly using the router to serve as a hardware load balancer and have the whole sticky session thing with failover, etc... All of the documents I find on the subject discuss clustering by way of Apache HTTP with Mod_JK.
I have already asked this question on the hardware side, and got great information about the capable load balancing features my router sports (but limited compared to Cisco CSS products.)
Now I'm wondering if anyone has experience taking an open source application server like Geronimo or Tomcat or JBoss and clustering it using hardware load balancing. What kinds of Tomcat configurations, if any, do I need to add for things like sticky sessions and failover? Or, is all that automatic?
Thanks so much for reading and for any replies. If there is a better forum for my question, please direct me there.
Cheers,
Dave Woldrich
http://CardMeeting.comThis occurs rarely when the Tomcat process is not able to connect to the database. The database connection problem is an internal cause which manifests externally as missing fields in reports.
Workaround: Restart the Apache process and the Tomcat process. From the CLI on your CiscoWorks Server, enter the following commands in the specified sequence:
1. pdterm Apache
2. pdterm Tomcat
3. pdexec Tomcat
4. pdexec Apache -
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
Maybe you are looking for
-
Is it possible to lock the keyboard of a client from a server using java
please explain wheterit is possible to lock the keyboard of a client from a server using java
-
When I turn my computer on,it asks me to log in, and when I do, it is a white screen. HELP!
When I turn my computer on,it asks me to log in, and when I do, it is a white screen. HELP!
-
Customize download to excel with disclaimer
I need to customize download link in dashboard so that results are downloaded to an Excel sheet but with client' s disclaimer message at the end. Client do not want the disclaimer to be shown on the dashboard. So basically we need to alter the downlo
-
Install problems - library areasQueries
I had the DB up and running, and tried to install Oracle 9iAS. The Oracle Universal Installer gave me this error: "There was an error during loading library areasQueries." This happened when I clicked Next on the Installation Types screen, partway th
-
I was syncing my iphone 4 and lost all my contact how do i get them back?
i lost all my contACT WHEN syncing my phone to itune what do i do and lease tell me i can get them back? i looked in outlook already they are not there?