Load balancing by RZ12 Serger Groups

Hi.
I'm trying to get some knowledge about this subject for my prod. BI system. Maybe some of you, almighty masters of SAP administration (standard flattering), could give me a hand
Here's the situation: We've a BI system (NW 7.0 ehp1) with 4 servers ( CI + 3 appl.serv). We've defined both a server group (RZ12) and a logon group (SMLG), with the same name, for bw load purposes. That means mostly background and dialog processes, with less number of end-user logons, so I'm focusing in the Server Group configuration.
Now, the problem: Basically, the number of processes are not properly balanced. Servers 1 and 2 get about the 80% of the work, while other two, 3 and 4 just the other 20%.
I've been reading and investigating but most of the documentation refeers to the logon group load balancing algorithms in SMLG, by the setting of group-dependnet atribute "Ext. RFC-enabled", with it's corresponding "Fab.Typ" algorithm
What i want to know if it's there's a way to know that balancing algorithm/method it's being used in RZ12 rfc server groups, and how can I verify and even modify that behaviour.
I've been checking this notes:
Note 593058 - New RFC load balancing procedure
Note 1508504 - Load balancing in background processing
Also:
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw70ehp1/helpdata/en/a4/db833d4c47ea4ea1a9b7af3c535ff2/content.htm
Any suggestion or informacion will be gladly wellcomed. Dont hesitate in requesting me more detailed information.
Thanks in advance and regards.
Armando.

Hi,
Are you using load balancing in RFC connections as well ?
Thanks
Sunny

Similar Messages

  • Apache HTTP proxying for load balancing only to a group of non-clustered WL servers

              Hi,
              We're running WL Server 6.1 SP 2 on Solaris 2.8.
              For the Apache HTTP proxy plugin, if you use the WebLogicCluster http.conf option,
              do the WL servers you want to load balance across have to be part of a WebLogic
              cluster (if you are prepared to do without failover, as I know it would need to be
              a proper WL cluster to replicate session info for failover). Can you load balance
              across a group of non-clustered WL servers, and maintain the user session to the
              one WL server so that it doesn't switch between servers on alternate requests for
              the same user session, or must the servers be configured as a WebLogic cluster?
              Paul
              We find that if you have a collection of WL servers that are not configured as a
              cluster, that it will load balance alternate requests to each server, but it will
              not pin a user to a single machine according to their session so for 2 servers, 2
              differetn sessions get created, one on each machine.
              Is this because it doesn't normally do this, but sends the user alternately to a
              primary then secondary which works in a cluster because the session is replicated.
              I thought the secondary was only used when the primary failed.
              

    We're running WL Server 6.1 SP 2 on Solaris 2.8.          >
              > For the Apache HTTP proxy plugin, if you use the WebLogicCluster http.conf
              option,
              > do the WL servers you want to load balance across have to be part of a
              WebLogic
              > cluster (if you are prepared to do without failover, as I know it would
              need to be
              > a proper WL cluster to replicate session info for failover). Can you load
              balance
              > across a group of non-clustered WL servers, and maintain the user session
              to the
              > one WL server so that it doesn't switch between servers on alternate
              requests for
              > the same user session, or must the servers be configured as a WebLogic
              cluster?
              You don't have to use the clustering option. To get failover, you'll have to
              use the JDBC persistence option of WL.
              > We find that if you have a collection of WL servers that are not
              configured as a
              > cluster, that it will load balance alternate requests to each server, but
              it will
              > not pin a user to a single machine according to their session so for 2
              servers, 2
              > differetn sessions get created, one on each machine.
              >
              > Is this because it doesn't normally do this, but sends the user
              alternately to a
              > primary then secondary which works in a cluster because the session is
              replicated.
              > I thought the secondary was only used when the primary failed.
              The primary/secondary stuff requires clustering. If Apache continues to
              "load balance" after the first request, you need to either use JDBC session
              persistence or use a different load balancer (like mod_jk for Apache or a
              h/w load balancer with support for sticky).
              Peace,
              Cameron Purdy
              Tangosol, Inc.
              http://www.tangosol.com/coherence.jsp
              Tangosol Coherence: Clustered Replicated Cache for Weblogic
              "Paul Hammond" <[email protected]> wrote in message
              news:[email protected]...
              >
              

  • ISE node group behind load balancer

    I'm trying to gather info on distributed deployment w/ multiple PSN nodes.
    Having read through some documents, it looks like you can put multiple PSN's in a node group, and then place the node group behind a load balancer.
    Q1:
    Node group config requires multicast.
    Cisco ACE LB doesn't support multicast, except in brige mode.
    How do people support distributed deployment in node group behind Ciso ACE?
    Q2:
    User guide says: "We recommend that you have two, three, or a maximum of four nodes in a node group."
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/security/ise/1.1.1/user_guide/ise_dis_deploy.html#wp1134272
    What if we need more than 4 PSN nodes to support our network & user base?
    Q3:
    Has anyone been able to implement distributed deployment between two datacenters behind GSS?
    If GSS isn't possible, we'll be happy to just have it in working state behind ACE LB.
    thx!

    I have had close to zero experience with LBs so my answers will be limited:
    Q1: I don't think the multicast plays any role with the LB. The multicast address is needed for the ISE nodes for replication
    Q2: You will have to create a new node group with a new multicast address
    Q3: No help here
    Couple of other things to remember:
    1. The nodes must be layer 2 adjacent
    2. You must use routed mode...no NAT/SNAT. Each node must be reachable directly from the end clients
    3. You must perform sticky
    4. The Load balancers must be listed as NADs in ISE
    Hope this provides some help to you.
    Thank you for rating!

  • Guest N+1 redundancy & load balancing in seperate data centers

    I need assistance in aquiring documentation to setup N+1 redundancy & load balancing between two seperate guest anchor controllers installed in seperate data centers. Can you explaing how it should be setup or point me in the right direction for documentation? If you can't point me in the right direction to aquire documentation; can you answer the following questions?
    1) How do I setup my mobility groups on my guest anchor controllers installed in the DMZ? Should both guest anchor's be in the same mobility group.
    2) Do both guest anchors share the same virtual IP or do they need to be seperate (DMZ01 - 1.1.1.1 / DMZ02 - 2.2.2.2)? I think seperate!
    3) Are there any configuration parameters on the guest anchors for load balancing?
    4) Do either on of the guest anchors need to be setup as a master controller? I'm not sure?
    5) Are there any configuration parameters on the foreign controllers for load balancing?
    6) How do I setup my foreign controllers? Should both guest controllers be added to the mobility group on the foreigh controller? I would think both of them would be added to the foreign controller mobility group.
    7) Should both guest anchors be added as an anchor on the WLAN? I would think both controllers would need to be added as anchors under the WLAN!
    8) Am I missing anything here? This is how I think it should logically work?
    Thanks,
    Gordon

    I need to elaborate on my questions:
    1) Do both of my guest DMZ anchors need to be in a seperate mobility group on their own or can the guest anchors be in completely seperate mobility groups? All 100 + foreign controllers are in seperate mobility groups.
    I) Example #1: Guest anchor number 1 (Mobility group: DMZ) / Guest anchor number 2 (Mobility group: DMZ)
    II) Example #2: Guest anchor number 1 (Mobility group: DMZ01) / Guest anchor number 2 (Mobility group: DMZ02)
    2) Do both guest anchor controllers have to be configured with seperate virtual IP's or do they share the same address?
    I) Follow up to this question: I want to register the DMZ controllers with our DNS servers so that my clients receive a name when authenticating through my customized webauth. I am currently using 1.1.1.1 as the virtual address and I'm pretty sure this is the address I need to register with my external DNS server. My question is this. Does the address I use for the virtual interface matter? 1.1.1.1 is not a valid address with my network. Do I need to assign a valid address registered with my network if I'm going to add this address to my external DNS servers?
    3) No change to my original question.
    4) No change to my original question.
    5) No change to my original question. I have run into Cisco documentation that mentions guest anchor load balancing, but the documentation is very vague. I'd love to be able to load balance as the network group wants to limit my guest traffic to the internet. I could double my pipe if I could load balance the guest anchors.
    6) No change to my original question, but the answer to question one is key to the setup of my foreign controllers.
    7) Elaboration: Should both guest controllers be added as an anchor under the WLAN on the foreign controllers? I would think both of them would be added.
    8) No change:
    9) Should my secondary guest controller be added as an anchor on the WLAN of the primary guest DMZ controller and visa versa?
    Can my Cisco expert answer this or do I need to open a TAC case?
    Thanks,
    Gordon Shelhon
    SR. Wireless Services Engineer
    Company: Not specified

  • H-REAP and Client Load-Balancing

    I'm told by Cisco that H-REAP does not support client load-balancing.
    We have a situation where we want to deploy LWAPPs using H-REAP into a conference room where training would take place.
    Any suggestions on how to overcome the inevitable slowness these people are going to experience from being unevenly associated with the APs?
    We can't re-write the application so we are looking for a wireless solution.
    Anyone hear about how other organizations have dealt with this type of situation?
    I'll be glad to supply more details if I am not being clear in my description of the problem.
    Thanks in advance. All responses will be rated.
    Paul

    This is the functionality which is missing in H-REAP: Client and Network Load Balancing
    "Radio Resource Management (RRM) load-balances new clients across grouped lightweight access points reporting to each controller. This function is particularly important when many clients converge in one spot (such as a conference room or auditorium) because RRM can automatically force some subscribers to associate with nearby access points, allowing higher throughput for all clients. The controller provides a centralized view of client loads on all access points. This information can be used to influence where new clients attach to the network or to direct existing clients to new access points to improve wireless LAN performance. The result is an even distribution of capacity across an entire wireless network.
    Note: Client load balancing works only for a single controller. It is not operate in a multi-controller environment."
    I suppose if we limit the number of users that can associate with a particular AP then we will achieve some client load-balancing. Though a hard limit on the number of end-users will also lead to situations where some end users will not be allowed any access.

  • Load balancing UDP application in ACE

    Hi all,
    What's the proper way to load balance a UDP application (NTP protocol) using ACE? We used to do it in our CSS using a content to load-balance and a source group to source-NAT the UDP replies from the servers to the VIP. I guess this should be implemented using NAT in the ACE, but I can't find any example.
    According to the manual, src-natting to VIPs is supported only in A1(8) and it is supposed to be used "when there is a limited number of real-world IP addresses on the client-side network".
    This is not our case, we just need to ensure that the client receives the UDP replies as coming from the VIP, not from real IP address of the server. This is not a problem in TCP-based applications, because the NAT from the rserver IP to the VIP is automatic. What is the proper way to obtain this behaviour for UDP applications? Thanks a lot!
    Regards,
    Pedro

    Pedro,
    reverse nating is not required in ACE world.
    This is done automatically.
    So, the server response will be automatically nated to the vip address when going back to the client.
    If you have an appliance and are just deploying now, I would recommend version A3(2.1).
    If you have a module go for A2(1.3).
    Gilles

  • WLC Load Balancing Threshold

    I am trying to understand how the load balancing threshold is calculated but I am finding conflicting information, even withing Cisco's own documentation. I would be grateful if anyone could help.
    Cisco's latest Wireless LAN Controller Configuration Guide for software release 7.0.116.0 (April 2011) contains the following information for configuring Wireless > Advanced > Load Balancing Page (emphasis mine):
    In the Client Window Size text box, enter a value between 1 and 20. The window size becomes part of the algorithm that determines whether an access point is too heavily loaded to accept more client associations:
    load-balancing window + client associations on AP with highest load = load-balancing threshold
    In the group of access points accessible to a client device, each access point has a different number of client associations. The access point with the lowest number of clients has the lightest load. The client window size plus the number of clients on the access point with the lightest load forms the threshold. Access points with more client associations than this threshold is considered busy, and clients can associate only to access points with client counts lower than the threshold.
    Option 1
    The formula shown is correct (load-balancing window + client associations on AP with highest load = load-balancing threshold). If so, this would mean that if you had a window size of 5 and the AP with the highest load at the time of calculation was 15, the threshold would be 18. However, as no APs have 18 associations then this threshold would never be reached. Even if an AP reach 18 associations, the next client trying to associate would trigger another calculation for the threshold which would be 21 (3 + 18) and so still, this threshold would never be hit.
    Option 2
    The description in the paragraph below is correct (The access point with the lowest number of clients has the lightest load. The client window size plus the number of clients on the access point with the lightest load forms the threshold). This sounds much more sensible to me. In this case, the window size was 3 and the AP with the lowest number of associations already had 7 clients associated, the load balancing threshold would be 10 i.e. no load balancing would occur until a client tried to associate with an AP which already had at least 10 clients associated.
    Option 3
    I have seen many descriptions on forums etc of the load balancing threshold being essentially the Client window size, i.e. if the client window size is 3 then load balancing will kick in when a client tries to associate to an AP with at least 3 clients already associated. This doesnt match the above documentation unless the AP with the least number of clients associated doesnt have any associated clients i.e. 0 clients.
    Questions
    I think Option 2 is the correct description of load balancing and the formula given stating use of the AP with the highest load is a typo (albeit still not corrected in the latest documentation). Am I correct?
    The problem with using the option 2 method of calculating the load threshold is that you will be unnecessarily performing load balancing in an environment where some of your APs do actually have zero clients associated, unless you set the window size to somehing close to 10.
    I read here http://www.perihel.at/wlan/wlan-wlc.html#aggressive-load-balancing that when calculating the load threshold, it only accounts for the 8 'best' APs for a given client. In other words, if you have 60 APs on your campus but only 20 are visible to the client, the controller will only perform its load threshold calculations bases on the 8 APs which have the best signal to the client. This would ,ake sense as there is no point setting a load threshold based on the lightest loaded AP which is not even within 'reach' of the client. Is this correct as I can not find any other documentation which supports this?
    Thanks in advance for your help with this.

    Interesting, the config guide contradicts itself in the same paragraph.....    I thought maybe we had two different documents with different explanations.  I don't see any open documentation bugs asking to correct this, but I swear I've heard discussion on this in the past.......
    First off:  Option #3 was the "old way". I think it changed in 6.0.    If you had a threshold of 5, then as soon as you had 5 clients on an AP it would reject the association (3 times and then let them on the 4th attempt).  Now its a sliding window/scale.
    Option #1 I think is completely wrong. As you described, how in the world would you ever surpass the threshold if the highest AP + the window is what you have to beat to load-balance....?    RIght, that just doesn't make any sense to me.....
    Option #2, the way you explain it is correct to my understanding...
    Your question #3 is also correct (not sure if it is Top 8 or based on an RSSI threshold though.)
    The idea is that you don't want some AP in a remote office with 0 clients being your starting point.   So I believe that it is based on the top X candidate for your client.    If your client has 4 viable candidates (lets just say -70 or better), and one of those APs has 5 clients and the rest have 15, I'd expect loadbalancing to try to get you to the 5 client AP if your window size was ~10......  something like that anyhow... 

  • AP load balancing question

    Hi there, is it possible to enable load balancing for a particular group of APs and disabled for the rest. Perhaps AP groups. Running 8500 WLC with 3600 series APs. It will enhance the service concurrent user capacities for areas with a high device count.
    Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPhone App

    Nope and I wouldn't recommend that feature. It cause soooooo many client issues when you around 12 clients associating to a given AP. If you have high density then as long as you are running v7.2, you have RF Profiles. These profiles are defined per AP Group if you want. On the RF Policies I would tweak the data rates depending on how the coverage is when looking at a post site survey. Knowing the power and the coverage pattern allows one to disable rates, set various rates as support and or mandatory. This is how you can reduce the cell size and have better client balancing that to enable client load balancing. Also tweaking the RRM is required too.
    Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPhone App

  • Load Balancing in SICF Service

    Hi,
    I have set Up Load Balancing for a Logon Group in the SICF service.
    In transacion SMMS, the parameter ms_Service_port_xx is maintained for HTTP for each server in the landscape.
    Is this all I have to do for Load Balancing or there is any additional settings ?
    Also, how to use the Session Timeout parameter in the SICF service (Just below Load Balancing )
    Thanks
    Anand

    Hello,
    The Logon group in SICF does not do any load balancing by itself.
    HTTP Load balancing is the job of the SAP web dispatcher which connects with HTTP to the message server to get the information about application servers and logon groups.
    You can also use directly the message server bu it is a bad solution because it's not really load balancing but merely redirects. A browser shortcut would redirect always to the same application server.
    Regards,
    Olivier

  • Portal Landscape - With 2 CSM (load balance) related question

    Hi,
      We are currently having a portal landscape (Dev, QA -2 app servers, PRD - 4 app servers). The load balancing happens on Production Portal using CSM (load balancer) and it does SSL offloading for security encryption and it lands onto one of the application servers. When we try to login to portal it authenticates using the LDAP (OID). And we have some links which takes to backend R/3, BW etc (we use SAP load balance using SMLG logon group)
    Now due to another special project the following is what we are planning:
    1. Adding couple of more application servers for production portal or having seperate second portal landscape itself
    2. Adding couple of more application servers for R/3 production server (load balance can be done with special logon group for that)
    Questions are:
    1. When we land into current production portal page and click a iview link for the special project it should go only to those special portal app servers (planning to do through another CSM) and from their to backend R/3. In this scenario how the authentication (or sso ticket) happens when it goes from CSM to another CSM, will it ask for login again or any issue will happen with SSO ticket ?
    2. If we decide to go for second portal landscape and in the same scenario when login to current prod portal page and click a iview link for the special project it should go to that another production portal,in that case what will happen to the login authentication happened through the first portal and SSO ticket ?
    3. Suppose if we go to the second production portal directly through a website and if the user tries to login using the same id to first portal how portal will deal in terms of security (SSO) and also how backend R/3 will behave when same id comes as part of SSO.
    Or if anyone thinks of any other issue apart from SSO or encryption related things which i need to be aware of, kindly let me know.
    Thanks,
    Murali.

    I am not sure what CSM is, but I would expect it only does ssl offloading and a sort of "reverse proxy" against the cluster.
    >1. When we land into current production portal page and click a iview link for the special project it should go only to those special portal app servers (planning to do through another CSM) and from their to backend R/3. In this >scenario how the authentication (or sso ticket) happens when it goes from CSM to another CSM, will it ask for login again or any issue will happen with SSO ticket ?
    This depends on the host name you use for the two CSM clusters. If they have the same subdomain, there should be no problem as the SAP Logon Ticket (MYSAPSSO2) cookie is issued to the sub domain of the portal.
    If they do not have the same subdomain, the second CSM cluster will receive the request without the MYSAPSSO2 cookie, and will therefore trigger reauthentication.
    >2. If we decide to go for second portal landscape and in the same scenario when login to current prod portal page and click a iview link for the special project it should go to that another production portal,in that case what will >happen to the login authentication happened through the first portal and SSO ticket ?
    It will fail, as the MYSAPSSO2 cookie from the first portal is not recognized in the second. However, you can easily setup so that the second portal trusts the first and does a logon based on its credentials
    >3. Suppose if we go to the second production portal directly through a website and if the user tries to login using the same id to first portal how portal will deal in terms of security (SSO) and also how backend R/3 will behave >when same id comes as part of SSO.
    I assume both portal will be setup against the same LDAP/UME source. Therefore it will allow the logon. The backend systems should trust both the first and second portal (STRUSTSSO2 transaction)
    I think your architecture choice comes down to if the new project has special considerations with regards to versioning of portal. If it does, it would be sensible to separate it into a separate portal (and you can always integrate them with the first portal through portal federation if you have a relatively new version).
    Regards
    Dagfinn

  • Setting up additional load balancing on ACE 4710

    I recently deployed ACE 4710 to load balance traffic to a group of web servers. I would like to add additional server farm(s) with different applications on them to ACE 4710 for load balancing the traffic. How can I best achieve this goal? I currently use 3 interfaces out of 4 interfaces (Server Side interface, Client side interface, and Failover interface). Do I need to use my last interface to set up for the new VIP address for a new server farm? Is virtualized service a possible solution? Thank you in advance.

    You can configure trunking so that multiple vlans can exist.
    Also note that the vip ip address does not have to belong to a subnet.
    You could configure a static route on the upstream router pointing the traffic for the new vip to the interface ip address.
    Gilles.

  • Load balancing algorithm for groups in RZ12

    Hello,
    I would like to know the load balancing algorithm for groups defined in RZ12.
    I know that log on groups for external connections are administered via SMLG and table RZLLICLASS.
    I also know that RFC resources can be managed for RFC logon groups via RZ12.
    Kind regards,
    Peter
    <removed_by_moderator>
    Point awarding is at your discretion, but read and follow the "Rules of Engagement"
    Edited by: Juan Reyes on Dec 3, 2010 10:21 AM

    Hello!
    Found this post while searching information about RFC and Logon Groups...
    I have some mess in my head with SMLG functionality and RZ12. As I know SMLG we can use to distribute users to application server instances, it gives us good achievement in performance. With RZ12 we can distribute RFC connection of particular job for parallel execution on predefined application server. With SMQS and SMQR transaction we can set "Name of AS Group" to route RFC-execution on certain server or servers. But I have troubles with understanding. Imagine, we set up group 1 with 2 servers (name it RFC_GR1), and group 2 with another 2 servers (name it RFC_GR2). How could qRFC scheduler decide on which RFC server group (RFC_GR1 or RFC_GR2) distribute RFC-execution? How to interact "Name of AS Group" with RFC groups if we can set only one group?   How could we distribute RFC-execution depending on our logon groups (smlg)? We would like to distribute RFC depending on SAP logon groups. Is it possible? Or do I compare apple and orange?
    Regards,
    Artem Ivashkin

  • How to configure RZ12  and SM59 ABAP connection settings when we have work with Load Balancing servers rather than a specific server .

    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,
    SHUBHAM

    Hi,
    No one using FMS behind a load balancer? No one using RTMPT?

  • Do i need to configure failover group for load balancing? srs3.1

    hello
    we are installing ssrs3.1 on two sunfire v210 for 20 sunrays
    do i have to configure a failover group in order to have load balancing?
    thx

    thx a lot..
    finally yes it needs the failover to work with load balancing

  • Windows 7: Service unknown when using load balancing group

    I try to run SAP GUI 7.10 on Windows 7. I use a load balancing group to connect to the server. The direct access to one of our cluster nodes works ok, but when clicking the link to the load balancing group says "load balancing error on logon 88: connection to messaging server not possible (rc=9)" (translated from german).
    What is happening here? It works good on Windows XP. Do I have to use another saplogon.ini or something?
    Thanks for any help!

    Is it ok to deactivate UAC in a company?
    That's something your M$ group must decide.
    It sounds like a good security feature but as we see here it´s a pain in the @$$ for administrators...
    Well - the purpose of it is to disable the ability of malware and virusses spreading around. I consider it as a security breach if a local user is able to simply copy files to the operating systems main directory. A user working with a frontend PC should not have local administrator rights at all; all software requiring this badly designed.
    If you use the SAPGUI installation server you can distribute services, saplogon.ini etc. using the installation server provided service without the need of users having to have local administration rights:
    Note 512040 - Distributing "services", "saplogon.ini", and similar files.
    I just think that "administrators" must learn to do work properly as designed with operating systems without just "copying files around" in system directories (and I don't exclude me in that context).
    Markus

Maybe you are looking for