Load balancing in dual stack

Hi all,
we have SRM 5.0 which is clustered with one apps server.... SMLG is configured and load balancing is not going well , all the load is going directly to CI not to apps server...
In BI [dual stack] portal the connection to SRM in system administration is configuation is pointing to CI with port 8003.. we changed the the CI host name to virtual address and port to msgserver 8100 where MS is listening .. but still load is coming to CI only.... even the port 8003 is also giving the same result with virtual host name...
Please suggest... where we are missing..
Thanks,
Subhash.G

hi all,
we have made the changed specified in the note and re-bounced the server , still same problem..
In SMMS ->go->Expert functions ->http->Url logon group .... i am not getting any information.. the screen is blank..
The HTTPS port is active and is configued to 8003 in SMICM, but when i check the service in SMMS it's pointing to HTTP and pointing to messgae server port 8100.
If we give the DI host name and port 8003 and portocal to HTTP the message is able to identify and able to do load balancing..
Please show some light...
Thanks,
Subhash.G

Similar Messages

10.4.4 broke load balancing on dual proc G4 (?)

I have an older dual processor G4 (gigabit ethernet) and under 10.4.2, the cpu monitor showed great load balancing between the cpus. Now, under 10.4.4, the cpu monitor shows no activity on the second cpu. I have the CHUD tools loaded so I'm able to select either one or two cpus as active and I've made sure both are selected when I run my tests. However, I believe both cpus are processing: if I set the CHUD tool to only one processor, the cpu monitor really jumps up, and hence it will drop down a bit if I select two cpus with the tool. Has anyone else seen similar behavior?
Thanks,
B. Rose
TiBook 800, iBook SE & Dual Proc G4 Mac OS X (10.4.4)

Hi all
Just fixed it myself. I realised that I had to share
FROM my built in ETHERNET to FIREWIRE / AIRPORT. I
had it set up to share FROM FIREWIRE as well!
Doh!
Still maybe this will help someone else...
Hi..what does that mean ..sharing both ways . How do you do that ? I'm ,of course, a Newbie at all of this stuff..so bear with my supid questions please. Thanks Dagny
imac Mac OS X (10.4.8) iworks?/

Disable load balancing on dual PRIs - 3640 with MICA modems for dial out

We have a custom application that connects through reverse telnet to a Cisco 3640 that has 2 NM-24DM modules and 2 PRIs connected to it. Currently all outgoing calls are getting load balanced over the two PRIs. I need to change that so that all calls go over the first PRI and when all channels are used up, it starts using the second PRI. Seems like a simple enough thing to do but I can't figure out how to.
Here is my config
Current configuration : 1401 bytes
version 12.4
service timestamps debug uptime
service timestamps log uptime
service password-encryption
hostname DIALOUT01
boot-start-marker
boot-end-marker
enable secret 5 xxxxxxx
no aaa new-model
clock timezone EST -5
clock summer-time EDT recurring
no ip routing
no ip cef
no ip domain lookup
ip domain name xxxxxxx.xxx
isdn switch-type primary-ni
controller T1 0/0
framing esf
linecode b8zs
pri-group timeslots 1-24
description xxxx
controller T1 0/1
framing esf
linecode b8zs
pri-group timeslots 1-24
description xxxx
interface FastEthernet0/0
ip address dhcp hostname dialout01
no ip route-cache
no ip mroute-cache
duplex auto
speed auto
interface Serial0/0:23
no ip address
encapsulation hdlc
isdn switch-type primary-ni
no fair-queue
no cdp enable
interface Serial0/1:23
no ip address
encapsulation hdlc
isdn switch-type primary-ni
no fair-queue
no cdp enable
no ip http server
control-plane
line con 0
line 33 56
modem InOut
modem autoconfigure type mica
transport preferred telnet
transport input telnet
transport output telnet
line 65 88
modem InOut
modem autoconfigure type mica
transport preferred telnet
transport input telnet
transport output telnet
line aux 0
line vty 0 4
password 7 xxxxx login
end
Thanks,
Shahid

If I understand the question I think that isdn bchan-number-order is the command you are interested in. I think it detaults to round-robin, sounds like you want ascending (that is isdn bchan-number-order ascending). It is an interface subcommand.
See http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_3t/12_3t2/feature/guide/gt_ibcac.html#wp1055853
That may only apply to native ISDN calls and not MICA based calls, but see if that helps.

LOAD BALANCER

How to find the port & host used for load balancer in Dual stack systems. ABAP & Java.

Thanks
As I mentioned that you can see the configured ports in your system earlier.
Now you have to decide which port you want to use and open that port in your firewall.
I am not sure which load balancer you want to configure.
Is it a hardware device or software?
In my point of view ,we have smlg configured in ABAP for load balancing.
Do you want a load balancing for web clients since you mentioned sapwebdispatcher.?
Thanks
Amit

Load balancing on cisco rv042

Hi friends,
This is regarding I am facing issue with configuring the load balancing in cisco rv042 .I had configured the load balancing between dual wan of leased line and adsl coonection but loadbalancing is not working fine kindly help me on this

If i close one link it takes 20 seconds of downtime and then ping goes without loses.
In the end i decided to go with PBR, since the deadline for our project was surpassed.
I set up acl that matched every other 32 adress block:
10 permit ip 192.168.100.32 0.0.0.31 any
20 permit ip 192.168.100.96 0.0.0.31 any
30 permit ip 192.168.100.160 0.0.0.31 any
40 permit ip 192.168.100.224 0.0.0.31 any
50 deny ip any any
Set a route map that sends that traffic trough one of the interfaces (Gi0/1) and let routing do the rest:
track 1 interface dialer 0 line-protocol
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0.0 Dialer0 track 1
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0.0 GigabitEthernet0/1 10
Its not exactly what i wanted but its close enough:)
Thanks for your advices.

VPN device with dual ISP, fail-over, and load balancing

We currently service a client that has a PIX firewall that connects to multiple, separate outside vendors via IPSEC VPN. The VPN connections are mission critical and if for any reason the VPN device or the internet connection (currently only a T1) goes down, the business goes down too. We're looking for a solution that allows dual-ISP, failover, and load balancing. I see that there are several ASA models as well as the IOS that support this but what I'm confused about is what are the requirements for the other end of the VPN, keeping in mind that the other end will always be an outside vendor and out of our control. Current VPN endpoints for outside vendors are to devices like VPN 3000 Concentrator, Sonicwall, etc. that likely do not support any type of fail-over, trunking, load-balancing. Is this just not possible?

Unless I am mistaken the ASA doesn't do VPN Load Balancing for point-to-point IPSec connections either. What you're really after is opportunistic connection failover, and/or something like DMVPN. Coordinating opportunistic failover shouldn't be too much of an issue with the partners, but be prepared for lot of questions.

Dual Nic Load Balancing Solution

Hi,
I have a very peculiar situation. I'm currently a college student with access to an almost unlimited network. But the problem is that the network limits each IP to 30 Mb/s. I have 2 nics at my disposal and have tried two options so far:
bonding
two independent nic, let network manager take care of it
I set-up bonding and got it working, but it seems limited to roughly the same speeds as a single nic, but I can see the network being slit between the two nics evenly. This is what lead me to conclude that since I have a single ip address it's limiting it by IP not mac addresses. Here I might occasionally spike above the limits but not consistently.
With the network manager solution, Im basically thrown at random and can occasionally get higher than limited speeds. Specially with torrenting clients.
Are there any other useful options that I could explore, my next stop was a load balancing routing table but I want to see what you guys know before I keep trying weirder solutions.
Thanks in advance

falconindy wrote:There's no problem here. Please don't try to circumvent the policies your network admins are defining.
Oh come on, we'd all do the same thing if we could double our available bandwidth!
I really can't provide much of a solution. I did this back with my dialup days, many many eons ago. I used 2 phone lines bonded to get my 56k speeds doubled. It was a gigantic pain in the rear to set up back then, as well. However, I'm lucky to remember what I had for breakfast, so remembering how I did something 15+ years ago is pretty much out of the question.
I'm sure linux can do this, but I'm guessing one of the BSDs would have information about how to do this written up somewhere. This is right up BSD's alley. They have all kinds of load-balancing code built into their network stack (Amazon actually had a lot of trouble keeping up with demand when they were getting big, so they wrote up their own networking stack, which has since been returned to the FreeBSD project, iirc). So it might be worth your time to check that out and possibly run a mini BSD setup on an old computer or something to route the bandwidth to an internal network (of course this would likely require three NICs in a single computer...so more complexity there too). Some of the problem you are running into may be due to the network just being congested, which could explain the differing speeds. Then there may be an issue with certain servers not being able to push out 60 MB/s worth of data to you, for whatever reason.
Either way, please keep us posted about what you do and how you do it, I'm anxious to find out the final solution here.
Best of luck to you.

Cisco RV042 - Dual Wan Load Balancing - Secure Site (HTTPS) Trouble

PID VID :
RV042 V03
Firmware Version :
v4.0.0.07-tm (Aug 19 2010 19:19:50)
Ever since I setup my RV042 with load balancing using the Dual Wan system I have had trouble staying connected to some secure sites. After doing some searching I found that the potential issue is the IP change mid session.
"http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/r25537589-Cisco-RV042-can-not-use-load-balancing-for-some-web-sites"
Although my interface is significantly different I was able to find the same area in my RV042 admin area however, it doesn't seem to work.
System Management
> Dual Wan
In Wan 1 & Wan 2 I have HTTPS and HTTPS Secondary all forwarded to use Wan 2 under Protocol Binding
This however has not managed to do anything at all for my network and every computer conneceted experiences the same HTTPS irregularities at some websites.
I'm sure I must be doing something wrong, but I don't know what it is.
Both incoming connections are from the same service provider although the plans are different.
Any help with this would greatly help me stop losing my mind trying to fight with my website control panel for 10 minutes to just login and get something done.
Thanks

Any ideas or advice from anyone?

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

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

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

Performance Routing (PfR) with single router, dual ISP and load balancing

It looks like PfR can do this but I have only found information about this feature which will start using ISP2 once ISP1 reaches 75% usage. But this is not load balancing.
Can we accomplish load balancing utilizing a single router with dual ISPs using this PfR feature?
Or do we have to use another feature?
thank you in advance

Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
I'm rusty using OER/PfR, but I recall it could load balance two links on same router. The issue, I also recall, if doing BGP, OER/PfR has to detect a load imbalance, and there's a certain difference allowance, and OER/PfR takes some time to decide, so depending on actual traffic, it might not be obvious it's working. If doing BGP, there's a hidden command (which I don't recall is) that will load balance the two links on the same router; then you use OER/PfR to dynamically refine the balance load.

Rv042 dual-wan threshold based load balance?

I have an RV042 (it's old, silver/dark grey plastic front one) w/ firmware 1.3.13.02-tm.
The reason we bought this (long ago) was to balance two WAN connections, one with unlimited data and one capped monthly. It did that once, but for a couple years both connections have been unmetered so it's just been balancing them 50/50. As of today one WAN connection (the new much faster one) is back to being metered but I can't figure out how to configure the RV042 as it once was to prefer sending traffic over the slow, unmetered connection first, and only use the faster metered connection when necessary.
It's been a long time and honestly I only vaguely remember the ability to prioritize a connection based on % of bandwidth used so that all traffic would go over the unlimited connection 1st until it was flooded, and only then fall over to the metered connection. This is totally different than the weighted round robin, or smart link backup.
I found this 3rdparty pforum post that supports that vauge memory and suggests this was eliminated netweem firmware 1.23 and 1.3:
http://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php?threads/rv042-load-balancing-options-from-the-manual-where-to-find.15512/#post-69948
So I humlbly ask... Is it possible to replicate this functionality with the current firmware? if so how? If not, how to do roll back to firmware 1.23?
It sounded like perhaps I could assigned WAN1 a bandwidth of 100000 (even though it's really 1500) and then assign WAN2 a bandwidth of 1 (even though it's really 20000) and the result might be the prioritization I'm looking to achieve... but I feel like I'm stumbling in the dark at the point.
Just FYI, I'm not at all opposed to buying new hardware to acheive this if it's not terribly expensive (ie. <$200). I'd rather not, but I've got to solve this quick.

Hi Jon,
I Also have one of these routers.
On the bottom mine says (v02) which means its hardware version is 2.
I just got this one brand new for home as I have been using them for a very long time now. However I have been using them for VPN and now I am needing the same functionality as you.
I am currently running Firmware Version: 1.3.12.19-tm
If you login to the web management (eg 192.168.1.1) and go to System Management > Dual-WAN
Down the bottom you will see "Protocol Binding".
This is all I know of to send specific ports or applications via a specific WAN.
I'll give you an example of how I am using it currently.. (BTW it seems to be working OK, But you are on a higher firmware)
eg: WAN1 is more reliable than WAN2 which is a cheap unlimited service.
So I bind port 5060 (sip), port 80 (http) and port 443 (https) to WAN1 so that my VOIP phone is on the good service and so is all web traffic.
so all the other stuff can use the unlimited connection.
Also, My current bandwidth settings are
WAN          UPSTREAM          DOWNSTREAM
1                384                       8000
2                384                       10000
And Under: System Management > Bandwidth Management you can also prioritize those ports.
This may help you in some way, So maybe you can help me..
Your post has made me not want to upgrade the firmware.. Can you please confirm that this functionality exists still?
Thanks

RV320 - Dual WAN - Load Balance Problem

Hi all,
I've just bought a RV320 Dual WAN router an try to get it running. My network setup looks lice the picture attached.
I have 2 WAN Connections:
- Router 1 (16Mbit Down / 512kbit up) - no public WAN IP
- Router 2 (3 Mbit Down / 512kbit up) - Fixed public IP
Router 1 ist connected to WAN1 and router 2 to WAN2 port on the RV320.
I have enabled load balancing mode.
Qustions:
1.
I want WAN1 to be the primary line to be used until capacity reached.
Currently for some reason I don't understand the cisco always uses WAN2.
That's not good as all browsing and downloading is limited to 3mbit.
When I switch to "fail-over" mode and set primry live to WAN1 that works, but WAN2 is not kept alive.
2.
I am using VOIP and need to route all VOIP traffic to WAN2 interface.
The best would be to tell the router IP 192.168.177.9 (voip phone) should use WAN2. So far I didn't figure out how to do that.
Can I put VOIP into one VLAN group and allocated VLAN to one specific WAN interface?
Brgds

So, you can hear the phone ringing and answer it? which means that SIP pakets are coming through WAN to LAN and well redirected to the phone IP, but you cannot hear after that, which means that there could be a problem with the RTP packets.
If you have problem only with the incoming calls and not the outgoing, than try enable/disable SIP ALG (Firewall). If that doesn't fix the issue, try to allow (or even forward) from WAN to LAN RDP - UDP ports 16384-32767 to the phone IP.
Regards,
Kremena

RV042 dual VPN connections between locations with load balance

We currently have three remote offices connected to the main office with gateway to gateway VPN's over DSL lines and everything is working fine. All offices have an RV042 with current firmware. We have added a second DSL line at every location and want to add a second VPN tunnel on WAN2 from the remote offices to the main office and load balance those. Load balance to the internet with the new lines works OK but the issue is that I can't create a second tunnel on WAN2 with the same network addresses as the existing tunnel on WAN1. It seems like this would be a pretty common thing with a dual WAN router but I'm not having much luck figuring it out. Does anybody know of a way to do what we're trying to do?

Hi,
WHile all the RV series Routers provide Dual WAN capability:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps9923/products_qanda_item09186a0080a33b64.shtml
Only thr RV082 allows the backup tunnel. The implementation on the RV082 is not to create a new, separate tunnel using the backup WAN. Instead, the VPN GUI exposes an Advanced tab for the primary tunnel, and you complete the fields in the GUI using the backup WAN IP addresses. I am pretty sure this is not offered on the RV042. It wasnt last I check, but check your GUI for the above. If its not there, then you cant do it.
Steve DiStefano
Systems Engineer
US Field Channel Sales

Dual WLAN links with load balancing and failover

Hello,
I am in a scenario where I am in need of two WLAN links between two buildings. There is a distance of 100-150 meters and minimum bandwidth required for both links together is 300Mbit/s. The thing is that both links should use load balancing between them and if one of them goes down, the last one should act as fail over.
I have been looking at Cisco Aironet 1550 Series though I have no idea what is needed to get load balancing and fail over to work, so I am searching here for suggestions on what equipment is needed.
Something like this:
              ---------------WLAN Link 150-300Mbit/s-----------
Building                    Load balancing and fail over               Building
          ---------------WLAN Link 150-300Mbit/s-----------
Thanks in advance!

Several points.
When an AP is doing 300Mbps, that's NOT the real throughput you have. It's the data rate at which traffic is sent.
All in all, if your AP/client are doing 300MBps association, you will see max 150Mbps with a file transfer.
From there, I'm not even sure that 11n supports dual spatial streams over such long distances (you can't have multipath in open air) so afaik the 1550 only do 150Mbps association rate (=dual channel with one spatial stream). That means 75Mbps real speed.
I couldn't test a 1550 yet so don't take my word for official statement but that's what I'm thinking.
the wireless links will always be both up and they can be on different channels.
That will then mean that it will be "as if" the remote switch was connected directly to the central switch (where WLC is connected) as the WLC tunnels traffic all the way. So you could do a spanning-tree config on this one I guess to block the port onthe remote switch.
Regards,
Nicolas

2 locations, 2 core switch stacks, fibre in between, equal cost load balancing between?

Hi,
We've recently inherited a job that another company was doing, so we've had our hand slightly forced on the kit and overall topology involved, however that's all fine and we can make it work.
This is a collapsed core topology with core and access switches, split over 3 blocks (fibre connections between), one core switch/stack is in block B and the other in block C, with access switches throughout.
They require all access switches to be connected to the Core in B and the Core in C, and then obviously cross connects between the two cores.
They state:
"Core switches shall be linked with 2x 1Gbps links bonded into a standard compliant Etherchannel"
"Uplinks between access and core switches shall be non-blocking - for example equal cost load balancing at layer 3, or layer 2 bonded multi-chassis Etherchannel"
The specced kit for the core are 3850's, in an ideal world I'd use VSS (Virtual Switch System) to achieve the above statements beyond repute; but this is only supported on 4500/6500 and Nexus platforms.
Do we think a cross stack etherchannel (LACP between both core switch stacks) would satisfy the above statements? Or the statements may just be badly worded...
I look forward to your thoughts and views on this! Thanks!

Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
As the others have noted, the 3850s, to stack, are restricted to the length of the longest stack cables.
As you have noted, VSS physical units would allow the "logical" unit to be far apart.
For a "small" VSS core, the 4500-X might be an idea unit. (Other than cost, the 4500 would be a better choice for a core device.)
Something to watch for, or understand, when running VSS, Etherchannel doesn't load balance as it does on a single chassis or stack. VSS will avoid using the VSL cross link unless it must.
As many access switches, today, support basic L3 routing, you might also determine whether a L3 edge would be a suitable alternative choice. It would allow retention of the 3850s and can offer some advantages even over VSS. (Where VSS is very nice [as too the Nexus] supporting servers with Etherchannels.)

Load balancing in dual stack

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for