Load Balancing based on website not on Interface

LocalDIrector 416
LOcalDirector is load balancing 2 IIS web servers ServerA and ServerB. The servers are running in round robin. If a client requests a webpage and is sent to ServerA and the site is not servicing requests but the interface is still up I want Local Director to fail over to ServerB. Is this possible?
Thanks

you need http probe.
Check the following url:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/contnetw/ps1894/products_configuration_example09186a0080093df4.shtml
Gilles.

Similar Messages

  • ACE30 Load balancing based on IP and using x-forward-for header

    Hi Guys,
    We currently have a load balancing policy setup to direct traffic to say FARM-A based on a particular range of source (client) IP addresses, and the default FARM-B for all the other traffic.
    We are now looking to introduce a web application firewall (WAF) before the ACE.  The WAF will be inserting the client IP address into the x-forward-for http header.  Now I was wondering how best can be achieve the load balancing based on source IP given that we'll have to parse the HTTP header for this x-forward-for field?  Are there any examples that anyone can point me to? 
    let me know if you have any questions.
    thanks
    Sheldon

    Hi Sheldon,
    You might try creating a class map that matches on the XFF header. Then use that as the L7 load balance criteria (based on the hash value of the XFF header), using the predictor hash header.
    -Alex

  • ACE load balance based on Source IP Address

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

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

  • Load Balancing using Virtual IP on DMZ interface of 5520 ASA

    We want to achieve a load balancing scenario using Virtual IP on DMZ interface on a Cisco ASA 5520.
    The IPs we are going to use on DMZ are 10.15.1.2 and 10.15.1.3
    These IPs are going to be NATted to all inside IPs.
    Lets say our outside IP is X.X.X.X
    This IP points to 10.15.1.2 and 10.15.1.3 with .2 being the primary and .3 being the secondary.
    When I hit the outside IP, it should point me to .2 and that .2 should take me to the inside IPs.
    I need configuration assistance with that.

    Hi Pratik,
    The ASA does not support having 1 global/translated IP address on the outside mapped to multiple local/real IP addresses on the DMZ. If it did, the ASA would have no way of deciding if traffic destined to X.X.X.X is really meant for 10.15.1.2 or 10.15.1.3. For this scenario, you should use a dedicated load balancer or a router that supports policy-based routing.
    -Mike

  • ACE load balancing based on URL

    I am trying to send traffic to one server or another based on the URL. I want traffic to foo.com/selfserv to direct to server A and traffic to foo.com/webui to direct to server B. I found URL inspection etc but I am not sure how to apply it the scenario as I do not want the ACE to inspect all inbound HTTP requests.

    The ACE performs regular expression matching against the received packet data from a particular connection based on the HTTP URL string. To configure a class map to make Layer 7 SLB decisions based on the URL name and, optionally, the HTTP method, use the match http url command in class-map HTTP load balance configuration mode.
    The ACE performs regular expression matching against the received packet data from a particular connection based on the RTSP URL string. You can configure a class map to make Layer 7 SLB decisions based on the URL name and optionally, the RTSP method, by using the match rtsp url command in class-map RTSP load balance configuration mode.
    Configuring Traffic Policies for Server Load Balancing:
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/app_ntwk_services/data_center_app_services/ace_appliances/vA3_1_0/configuration/slb/guide/classlb.html

  • HOWTO: load balance based on source subnet

    Hi Guys,
    We are currently working out if there is a way to load balance specific subnets to a specific rserver within a server farm behind the one VIP.
    For example (all Rservers within one serverfarm Serv_farm001):
    Subnet 10.10.10.0/24  load balance to Rserver A ( with Rserver B as backup )
    Subnet 20.20.20.0/24  load balance to Rserver B ( with Rserver A as backup )
    I can see from the configuration guide that you could maybe use sticky src IP to do this, but I haven't seen anything to confirm this.
    Any takers on this, I'm sure it would be a familar common thing that others are doing out there?
    Looking fwd to the responses!
    Cheers
    R

    Hi Rob,
    You can either do this on the incoming-interface ACL or for easier management you can do the following:
    class-map type http loadbalance match-any Subnet-A
      2 match source-address 10.10.10.0 255.255.255.0
    class-map type http loadbalance match-any Subnet-B
      2 match source-address 20.20.20.0 255.255.255.0
    policy-map type loadbalance first-match SLB
      class Subnet-A
        serverfarm A
      class Subnet-B
        Serverfarm B
    HTH
    Pablo

  • Load balance based on OS

    Is it possible to load balance incoming requests based on client's operating system on ACE?
    For example, we have different web pages specifically for Blackberry or iPhones.
    Instead of having multiple URL's & VIP's, we'd like to have a single VIP, but load balance traffic to different serverfarms based on client's OS.

    You can loadbalance based on User-Agent header, first you need to quantify what Iphone and blackberry use for user-agent for instance from a regular browser you might see:
    User-AgentT=Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)
    from an iphone you will typically see:
    User-Agent=Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en)
    AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/1C25 Safari/419.3
    you can go to http://www.user-agents.org to find out what strings are used
    That being the case you can make classes on the header to match for loadbalancing decisions:
    class-map type http loadbalance match-any mobile
    2 match http header User-Agent header-value .*iphone
    4 match http header Uswer-Agent header-value .*blackberry
    then in LB policy say we want to go to farmA for mobile and farmB for pc's
    policy-map type loadbalance first-match L7POLICY
       class mobile
         serverfarm farmA
        class class-default
        serverfarm farmB
    see:
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/interfaces_modules/services_modules/ace/v3.00_A2/configuration/slb/guide/classlb.html#wp1021388

  • Load balancing for CORBA servers not happening

    We have configured 10 instances of a corba server, 5 each in two separate server groups. In the ubbconfig file, I have set "LDBAL Y", expecting that the load will be spread equally among the 10 severs. What is happening is that, load is spread between two servers, one in each server_group. (The last one specified for each group) Other servers in each group got very few requests and few servers got 0 load.
    What do I need to do, in order to spread the load almost equally among the 10 servers, similar to what we get, when we use MSSQ, in non-corba tuxedo servers?
    This is a single domain single machine environment.
    James

    Hi James,
    As I believe the whitepaper Ed pointed to you probably explained, what you are likely seeing is normal behavior for load balancing. Assuming that you aren't dealing with issues associated with active objects and that requests to active objects are going to be sent to the server where the object is active, then you seeing normal behavior.
    Roughly speaking, in determining what server to give a request to, Tuxedo scans the list of available servers and places the request on the server with the least amount of work queued. If not work is queued for a server, it will place the request on that servers queue. Also, the scan of servers is always done in the same order. So unless your servers are quite busy, the first server will handle most of the requests. Only when that server is busy will Tuxedo go to the next server, and so on. So the only way the 5th server is going to get a request queued to it is if the previous 4 servers are busy.
    Note that unless you are using parallel objects (user controlled concurrency), Tuxedo will always send the request to a server in the same group as the server that created the object. So in your example, if the factory that created the object was in group 20, all requests to that object are going to go to a server in group 20.
    Regards,
    Todd Little
    BEA Tuxedo Chief Architect

  • OSB jms clustering - load balancing seems to be not working

    Hi All,
    I have one admin server and two managed servers running ( one of these managed server is running in the remote linux machine) in a cluster
    I have connectionfactory created with load balance enabled with round robin
    and server affinity is disabled
    I have queue created as uniformly distributed Q
    I have a proxy service with load balancing as roundrobin and endpoint URL as below
    jms://rdoelapp001011:61703,rdoelapp001013:61703/synergyConnectionFactory1/MM_gridQ0
    If I execute this proxy sending messages it always go to one server only. There is no message going to the other server.
    If I shutdown the server that receives messages then the other server is receiving messages. Seems like fail-over is working but not the load-balancing
    There is one point may be worth mentioning here is, from the admin console if I look at the servers for the clusters it has below information
    Name      State      Drop-out Frequency      Remote Groups Discovered      Local Group Leader      Total Groups      Discovered Group Leaders      Groups      Primary      
    synergyOSBServer1     RUNNING     Never     0     synergyOSBServer1     1     synergyOSBServer1     *{synergyOSBServer1}*     0          
    synergyOSBServer2     RUNNING     Never     0     synergyOSBServer1     1     synergyOSBServer1     *{synergyOSBServer1, synergyOSBServer2}* 0
    one server has groups as {synergYOSBServer1} instead of {synergyOSBServer1, synergyOSBServer2}. Does that look correct?
    here is my jms xml file
    <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
    <weblogic-jms xmlns="http://xmlns.oracle.com/weblogic/weblogic-jms" xmlns:sec="http://xmlns.oracle.com/weblogic/security" xmlns:wls="http://xmlns.oracle.com/weblogic/security/wls" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://xmlns.oracle.com/weblogic/weblogic-jms http://xmlns.oracle.com/weblogic/weblogic-jms/1.1/weblogic-jms.xsd">
    *<connection-factory name="synergyConnectionFactory1">*
    *<sub-deployment-name>synergySubDeploy1</sub-deployment-name>*
    *<default-targeting-enabled>false</default-targeting-enabled>*
    *<jndi-name>synergyConnectionFactory1</jndi-name>*
    *<client-params>*
    *<client-id-policy>Restricted</client-id-policy>*
    *<subscription-sharing-policy>Exclusive</subscription-sharing-policy>*
    *<messages-maximum>10</messages-maximum>*
    *</client-params>*
    *<transaction-params>*
    *<xa-connection-factory-enabled>false</xa-connection-factory-enabled>*
    *</transaction-params>*
    *<load-balancing-params>*
    *<load-balancing-enabled>true</load-balancing-enabled>*
    *<server-affinity-enabled>false</server-affinity-enabled>*
    *</load-balancing-params>*
    *<security-params>*
    *<attach-jmsx-user-id>false</attach-jmsx-user-id>*
    *</security-params>*
    *</connection-factory>*
    <uniform-distributed-queue name="errorQ">
    <sub-deployment-name>synergySubDeploy1</sub-deployment-name>
    <default-targeting-enabled>false</default-targeting-enabled>
    <jndi-name>errorQ</jndi-name>
    <load-balancing-policy>Round-Robin</load-balancing-policy>
    <forward-delay>-1</forward-delay>
    <reset-delivery-count-on-forward>true</reset-delivery-count-on-forward>
    </uniform-distributed-queue>
    <uniform-distributed-queue name="undlvQ">
    <sub-deployment-name>synergySubDeploy1</sub-deployment-name>
    <default-targeting-enabled>false</default-targeting-enabled>
    <jndi-name>undlvQ</jndi-name>
    <load-balancing-policy>Round-Robin</load-balancing-policy>
    <forward-delay>-1</forward-delay>
    <reset-delivery-count-on-forward>true</reset-delivery-count-on-forward>
    </uniform-distributed-queue>
    *<uniform-distributed-queue name="MM_gridQ0">*
    *<sub-deployment-name>synergySubDeploy1</sub-deployment-name>*
    *<default-targeting-enabled>false</default-targeting-enabled>*
    *<jndi-name>MM_gridQ0</jndi-name>*
    *<load-balancing-policy>Round-Robin</load-balancing-policy>*
    *<forward-delay>5</forward-delay>*
    *<reset-delivery-count-on-forward>true</reset-delivery-count-on-forward>*
    *</uniform-distributed-queue>*
    <saf-imported-destinations name="synergySAFImportedDest1">
    <sub-deployment-name>synergySubDeploy1</sub-deployment-name>
    <default-targeting-enabled>false</default-targeting-enabled>
    <saf-queue name="gridQ0">
    <remote-jndi-name>MB_gridQ0</remote-jndi-name>
    <local-jndi-name>gridQ0</local-jndi-name>
    <non-persistent-qos>At-Least-Once</non-persistent-qos>
    <time-to-live-default>0</time-to-live-default>
    <use-saf-time-to-live-default>false</use-saf-time-to-live-default>
    <unit-of-order-routing>Hash</unit-of-order-routing>
    </saf-queue>
    <jndi-prefix>MB_</jndi-prefix>
    <saf-remote-context>synergySAFContext1</saf-remote-context>
    <saf-error-handling>synergySAFErrorHndlr1</saf-error-handling>
    <time-to-live-default>0</time-to-live-default>
    <use-saf-time-to-live-default>false</use-saf-time-to-live-default>
    <unit-of-order-routing>Hash</unit-of-order-routing>
    </saf-imported-destinations>
    <saf-remote-context name="synergySAFContext1">
    <saf-login-context>
    <loginURL>t3://rdoelapp001013:7001</loginURL>
    <username>weblogic</username>
    <password-encrypted>{AES}z9VY/K4M7ItAr2Vedvhx+j9htR/HkbY2LRh1ED+Cz5Y=</password-encrypted>
    </saf-login-context>
    <compression-threshold>2147483647</compression-threshold>
    </saf-remote-context>
    <saf-error-handling name="synergySAFErrorHndlr1">
    <policy>Log</policy>
    <log-format xsi:nil="true"></log-format>
    <saf-error-destination xsi:nil="true"></saf-error-destination>
    </saf-error-handling>
    </weblogic-jms>
    Any help will be greatly appriciated
    Edited by: 818591 on Feb 16, 2011 11:28 AM

    I am not getting you here "the right approach is to make OSB run on the man server cluster and not on admin server. "
    I have a jms proxy service that I created from admin console
    And also I have gone thru the step 5 in the link below
    http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E13159_01/osb/docs10gr3/deploy/config.html#wp1524235
    If I am not wrong, the proxy service endpoint URI determines where it is pointing to. If it is a cluster environment, it should point to a clustered address
    My proxy has below endpoint URI
    jms://rdoelapp001011:61703,rdoelapp001013:61703/synergyConnectionFactory1/MM_gridQ0
    and rdoelapp001011:61703,rdoelapp001013:61703 is my cluster address
    As per your suggestion "To fix your problem, *make osb to run on the cluster* and specify the same URL for the jms proxy service"
    Could you please provide some instruction how would I "make osb jms proxy service to run in a cluster"
    As a note, I have Q defined as a distributed Q and connection factory targets to the cluster. UDQ also targtes to the cluster.
    Just for a testing I have created another manged server running local to the machine where my admin server is running
    And I created a proxy by following steps as I mentioned above and with endpoint URI as below
    jms://rdoelapp001011:61703,rdoelapp001013:61703,*rdoelapp001011:61700*/synergyConnectionFactory1/MM_gridQ0
    where the new address of my cluster is rdoelapp001011:61703,rdoelapp001013:61703,rdoelapp001011:61700
    It did create consumers in both the managed servers in the cluster that are running locally, but no consumers in the remote managed server.
    So I am kind of leaning towards thinking that there is some incorrect setup for the remote managed server and may be admin server is not able to communicate to the remote server for some reason but not sure about it..
    As a note the cluster is setup to communicate using "unicast" channel
    and I created a channel in each manged server with the same name
    here is the cluster configuration
    <name>synergyCluster1</name>
    <cluster-address>rdoelapp001011:61703,rdoelapp001013:61703,rdoelapp001011:61700</cluster-address>
    <default-load-algorithm>round-robin</default-load-algorithm>
    *<cluster-messaging-mode>unicast</cluster-messaging-mode>*
    *<cluster-broadcast-channel>synergyChannel1</cluster-broadcast-channel>*
    *<number-of-servers-in-cluster-address>3</number-of-servers-in-cluster-address>*
    </cluster>
    here are the twoOSBserver configuration
    <server>
    <name>synergyOSBServer1</name>
    <machine xsi:nil="true"></machine>
    <listen-port>61703</listen-port>
    <cluster>synergyCluster1</cluster>
    <web-server>
    <web-server-log>
    <number-of-files-limited>false</number-of-files-limited>
    </web-server-log>
    </web-server>
    <server-debug>
    <debug-scope>
    <name>weblogic.jms.saf</name>
    <enabled>true</enabled>
    </debug-scope>
    <debug-jmssaf>true</debug-jmssaf>
    <debug-saf-sending-agent>true</debug-saf-sending-agent>
    </server-debug>
    <listen-address>localhost</listen-address>
    <network-access-point>
    *<name>synergyChannel1</name>*
    *<protocol>cluster-broadcast</protocol>*
    *<listen-address>localhost</listen-address>*
    *<listen-port>61702</listen-port>*
    <http-enabled-for-this-protocol>true</http-enabled-for-this-protocol>
    <tunneling-enabled>false</tunneling-enabled>
    *<outbound-enabled>true</outbound-enabled>*
    *<enabled>true</enabled>*
    <two-way-ssl-enabled>false</two-way-ssl-enabled>
    <client-certificate-enforced>false</client-certificate-enforced>
    </network-access-point>
    <jta-migratable-target>
    <user-preferred-server>synergyOSBServer1</user-preferred-server>
    <cluster>synergyCluster1</cluster>
    </jta-migratable-target>
    </server>
    <server>
    <name>synergyOSBServer2</name>
    <ssl>
    <enabled>false</enabled>
    </ssl>
    <machine xsi:nil="true"></machine>
    <listen-port>61703</listen-port>
    <listen-port-enabled>true</listen-port-enabled>
    <cluster>synergyCluster1</cluster>
    <web-server>
    <web-server-log>
    <number-of-files-limited>false</number-of-files-limited>
    </web-server-log>
    </web-server>
    <listen-address>rdoelapp001013</listen-address>
    <network-access-point>
    *<name>synergyChannel1</name>*
    *<protocol>cluster-broadcast</protocol>*
    *<listen-address>rdoelapp001013</listen-address>*
    *<listen-port>61702</listen-port>*
    <http-enabled-for-this-protocol>true</http-enabled-for-this-protocol>
    <tunneling-enabled>false</tunneling-enabled>
    *<outbound-enabled>true</outbound-enabled>*
    *<enabled>true</enabled>*
    <two-way-ssl-enabled>false</two-way-ssl-enabled>
    <client-certificate-enforced>false</client-certificate-enforced>
    </network-access-point>
    <java-compiler>javac</java-compiler>
    <jta-migratable-target>
    <user-preferred-server>synergyOSBServer2</user-preferred-server>
    <cluster>synergyCluster1</cluster>
    </jta-migratable-target>
    <client-cert-proxy-enabled>false</client-cert-proxy-enabled>
    </server>
    <server>
    Edited by: 818591 on Feb 18, 2011 11:26 AM

  • Global load balancing/active active vip and virtual interface redundancy

    Is there a way to configure both of these technologies without exposing the external addressing to the internal network? I have active active within the data center and would like to have active/active across two data centers but I don't see any way to use internal addressing for my content rules and still use them for dns unless I can specify records without using content rules. Thanks.
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/contnetw/ps789/products_configuration_example09186a008009438a.shtml
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/contnetw/ps792/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a0080157898.html

    Hi Victor,
    In response to your questions regarding doing Active/Active GSLB using VIP and interface redundancy.
    Rule Based GSLB will not work with VIP/Interface
    redundancy.
    The reason is because the CSS can not set up an app session to a redundant
    interface, it needs to set the app session up to a real interface. Thus, a
    full mess topology must be used for GSLB and vip/interface redudancy.
    Bug ID CSddw27861 reported this problem and engineering added the command
    "ap-kal-vip" to support a full mess topology. This command can only be used
    under zone based GSLB and not rule based.
    The syntax for the command would be:
    dns-record a www.work.com 5.5.5.5 0 single kal-ap-vip 1.1.1.1
    rule/ACL based GSLB with vip/int redundancy will not work.
    Regards,
    Mark

  • Load balancing based on source IP address

    Hi,
    I configured a CSS to balance the load depending on source IP address to suppport a application feature in the server.
    We have two firewalls and behind we have different users. We have also two servers behind the CSS.
    Firewalls perform NAT with a unique outside IP address. So, for example, in these conditions the CSS balances requests coming from FW 1 to server 1 and requests coming from FW 2 to server 2. Is it correct this scenario?
    Is it possible that requests coming from FW 1 could be forwarded to Server 2 and viceversa?
    Could anyone answer me?
    Thanks in advance.
    Best regards.
    Giuseppe.

    Giuseppe,
    it all depends on how you configured your CSS.
    Did you use an ACL to force traffic from SRC1 to server1 and traffic from SRC2 to server2 ?
    Or did you simply configure sticky based on source ip or a source ip hash loadbalancing ?
    Except the ACL, all other methods do not guarantee that the traffic will be splitted in 2.
    Gilles.

  • Load balancing on cookie pattern NOT working

    Hi,
    I try to configure ACE 4710 LB A5(2.1) LB to do following:
    1. client send a http request for login to WEB srv
    2. server response and send a cookie Set-Cookie with following pattern JSESSIONID=C333C37FCF083D210A639ABB8BB9DB21.S01 (33 random body 3 char string server ID)
    3. Client send authorize http request to other server with the cookie in  URI (traffic not go via LB)
    4. Authorize server send to WEB srv a request containing that cookie and wait for answer.
    Client ----> ACE LB VIP ---> WEB server
    Client -----> Authorize SRV ----> ACE LB VIP ----> WEB server
    There are 4 WEB srv which have sessions ending in . S01 S02 S03 S04
    I want that all login request to be round robin balanced, and authorize request to be forwarded to right WEB srv based on cookie termination S01 or .....
    Configuration:
    1. server farm probing
    probe http http_8080
       port 8080
       interval 7
       passdetect interval 3
       passdetect count 4
       receive 2
       expect status 200 200
       open 3
    2. cookie stickiness settings
    sticky http-cookie JSESSIONID web-pro-srv-8080-stk
       cookie offset 33 length 3
       serverfarm WEB-pro-8080
       timeout 5
       replicate sticky
    3. Traffic policy
    class-map match-all WEB-pro-8080
       2 match virtual-address 192.168.123.100 tcp eq 8080
    policy-map type loadbalance first-match WEB-pro-8080
       class class-default
         sticky-serverfarm web-pro-srv-8080-stk
    policy-map multi-match EXTERNAL
      class WEB-pro-8080
         loadbalance vip inservice
         loadbalance policy WEB-pro-8080
         loadbalance vip icmp-reply active primary-inservice
    Issue: Some sessions obtained at login are forwarded by LB      to wrong WEB srv
    Can you please help me?

    Hi Luke,
    Lets say for your client request, server sent in response the following cookie "JSESSIONID=C333C37FCF083D210A639ABB8BB9DB21.S01". Ace will hash the cookie value "C333C37FCF083D210A639ABB8BB9DB21.S01" and associates the hash value with the real server in the sticky table entry. So when your Authorize SRV sends a login request to the ACE, if the cookie value is the same as
    "C333C37FCF083D210A639ABB8BB9DB21.S01" then it will send the request to the same real server based on the sticky table entry.
    You can check the sticky table using the following command to see what cookie value is associated with which real server:
    show sticky database http-cookie "C333C37FCF083D210A639ABB8BB9DB21.S01"
    To confirm if the "client" and "Authorize SRV" send the same cookie in their request you could take a packet capture on the ACE. If the cookie value is different then the ACE will check the sticky table and according to the match it will send to the correct real server.
    Could you please confirm the cookie sent by both client and the Authorize SRV are same but still the ACE sends it to a different server ?
    Thanks,
    Rajesh.

  • Load Balancing per packet not working properly

    Hi,
    I am attaching you the configs of issue. There are two links E1 links from
    Karac-1(Serial0/0/0:0 & 0:1) and Karac-2 with (Tunnel10) which were connected with Khask-1w
    Now the issue is that Load balancing per packet were not done sucessfully the NMS snap shot is already attached.
    Load balancin g only configured in KarAC-1 & 2
    What is the resolution of this problem traffic only use on two links but third links were not utilize.
    Kind regards,Salman Ahmed

    Hi Paolo!
    I have one doubt pertaining to per-packet load-sharing. In order to connect my two data-centres- A & B, Site A is having two WAN links and Site B is having two WAN links - one from ISP1 (30Mbps link) and the other from ISP2 (50Mbps link). I am doing static route load balancing using same AD values for both the ISPs. I have configured "ip load-sharing per-packet" on both the outgoing interfaces.
    The load is getting distributed equally across both the links but total bandwidth utilization across both the links is not going beyond 30Mbps. The combined bandwidth of both links is 80Mbps (50+30). However links are not getting fully utilized even though heavy load is there on the links. Can you please tell me how to make full use of both the wan links at both the ends? OR Can you tell me how I can distribute the traffic across both the links with full utilization without using per-packet load sharing. Moreover, my links can be configured statically only at both the ends.

  • 2 nodes in a RAC not load balanced well

    Our db is 2 nodes RAC with version of 10.2.0.3.0 on window 2003 server. I am wondering what else we may need to look into besides tnsnames.ora file to well balance the load between those two instances. Currently our
    db is not well balanced based on the following two things:
    1) query against gv$session
    2) different amount of archive log files created in those two servers
    Any help is greatly appreciated.
    Shirley

    1) query against gv$sessionMay be check the load on the individual servers as well and check to make sure that the LOCAL_LISTENER and REMOTE_LISTENER parameters are set correctly.
    2) different amount of archive log files created in those two serversI don't think measuring this would be a valid metric to evaluate the effectiveness of load balancing and this is not taken into consideration by oracle while load balacing the connections....
    HTH
    Thanks
    -Chandra Pabba

  • 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!

Maybe you are looking for