Load Balancing Solution

Folks:
I need to implement a load balancing solution pretty soon and I would like some ideas regarding topology, design and methodology.
This is what I have:
1.) Two 7600 Aggregation routers with 4500 L2 server farm switches hanging off of them in a looped topology.
2.) Load balancers (either an ACE module or an ACE appliance).
3.) 4 vlans with a cluster of DNS servers in one, a cluster of DHCP in another, and 2 application server clusters in the 3rd and 4th.
What I need to know is what approahes I can take regarding routing methodology, L2 adjacency, general approach, connectivity, etc.
I know this is a loaded question, but if I can get 2 or 3 complete solutions from the folks on this board, that would be awesome!
Im about to board aplane, so I cant respond to queries until about 3 hours or so.
Thanks!
Victor

Jason,
Quite simple....
content rule 1 (site1)
vip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
port xx
prot tcp
url "//site.com/*"
advance-balance arrow-point cookies
no persistance
add service server1
add service server2
active
Second content:
content rule 2 (site2)
vip address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
port xx
prot tcp
url "//site2.com/*"
advance-balance arrow-point cookies
no persistance
add service server1
add service server2
add service server3
add service server4
active
Services for CSS:
Server1
ip address xyz.sss.ddd.ddd (ip address of web server1)
port xx
prot tcp
act
Server2
ip address xyz.sss.ddd.ddd (ip address of web server2)
port xx
prot tcp
act
Server3
ip address xyz.sss.ddd.ddd (ip address of web server3)
port xx
prot tcp
act
Server4
ip address xyz.sss.ddd.ddd (ip address of web server4)
port xx
prot tcp
act

Similar Messages

Acrhitecture of network load balancing solution

i'm working on a setup that will transition our existing data center setup to a network load balancing solution. i'm far from understanding what components to use and how to approach the problem so any help would be very welcome. here is what we currently have:
1. 3 web servers (serverA, serverB, serverC)
2. 1 sql server
3. 2 layer two unmanaged switches
4. 1 cisco firewall
each one of the web servers runs a dedicated web app. what i would like is to replace serverA with a NLB cluster of 3 servers and replace serverB with another NLB cluster of 3 servers. serverC is not getting that much usage and it can stay as is.
i have looked at possible solution with Windows Server 2008 NLB and it seems that the best way to do it would be using multicasting which requires upgrading out switches. at the same time if would much more prefer to use hardware load balancing than Windows Server. so i looked at Cisco ACE 4710 appliance. however it seems that some of the cisco switches will also do load balancing. now i'm completely confused whether to upgrade the switches and use them for load balancing or use the ACE appliance. i would appreciate any advices and suggestions. also, any recommendations on breaking up the network using VLANs - if it is necessary with either one of the solutions or if there is some benefit. i guess i'm looking for a "best practices" solution...
any links or documents would be very welcomed.
thanks.

thanks for your response. i think i'm going with ace 4710. now, as far as vlans go why would i need internet, dmz and internal vlan in my datacenter? i understand that this may be a bit off topic but what is really bugging me is this: with the current setup all of the web servers have 2 nics - one with public IP and one with private IP. same goes with the sql server. on web servers nics with private IPs are used for communicating with the database server. they could very well communicate using nics with public IPs but the person that set this up (i recently inherited it) was convincing me that with the existing setup "public" nics are not burdened with communication between web servers and database server. is this "correct" way of doing it?

Best Load Balancing solution for NMS 4.15

What is the best load balancing solution for Messaging Server with 250 users?

What are you trying to achieve? I do not understand from your question what it is you are trying to accomplish. What component(s) of NMS are you trying to load balance?

Load balancing solution for 2-3 web servers

i am looking for a solution for load balancing between 2-3 servers in the same datacenter. i saw the ACE 4710 but that seems expensive compared to the rest of the the cisco gear in that datacenter. anybody knows what would be an entry level load balancing solution (2-3 web servers)? thanks in advance.

the Ace appliance is the new generation and if you take the lowest license 1/2 Gig you should pay a lower price.
You can still buy the old generation.
This would be the CSS11501.
If you need SSL offload this comes by default with ACE but no the CSS.
CSS11501-K has the SSL offload feature.
Also note the appliance has many more features which can be turned on by simply adding a new license.
So, if your site grows and you require more functionalities or more BW, you won't need new hardware.
Gilles.

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.

Office Web Apps Load Balancing Configuration Issue for SharePoint 2013

I have load balanced servers dedicated for Office Web Apps with name “md1xxxwfe1” and “md1xxxwfe2”
, both this servers are load balanced by CISCO Load balancer. And I have mapped Load Balancer Virutal IP with host name officeapps.jda.corp.local in the DNS records.
Things are working fine if I add new farm by using New-OfficeWebAppsFarm
with server name as internalurl in PowerShell console
as like “ -internalurl http://
md1xxxwfe1 but when I use –internalurl officeapps.jda.corp.local it is not working at all. I’m not getting what to do at this point.
I have gone through following blogs but no luck.
http://blogs.technet.com/b/meamcs/archive/2013/03/27/office-web-apps-2013-multi-servers-nlb-installation-and-deployment-for-sharepoint-2013-step-by-step-guide.aspx
http://blogs.technet.com/b/office_resource_kit/archive/2012/09/11/introducing-office-web-apps-server.aspx
http://davidlimsharepoint.blogspot.in/2013/02/installing-and-configuring-office-web.html
http://sps2013.blogspot.in/2013/09/office-web-apps-with-sharepoint-2013.html
The output of the wfe1 server is attached with this. When I open http:// /hosting/discovery in wfe1 I’m getting following result (attached
screenshot) but it should show hostname rather than server name.
Please help me
Thanks, Ram Ch

Hi Ram ,
For troubleshooting your issue, please take steps as below:
Just about any load balancing solution will work, including a server that runs the Web Server (IIS) role running Application Request Routing (ARR):Install
Application Request Routing
Install the certificate on the load balancer as described under Securing Office Web Apps Server communications by using
HTTPS.
Make sure you have configured the cluster correctly for full internet name:
Reference:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/jj219435.aspx#loadbalancer
Thanks,
Eric
Forum Support
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 Subscriber Support,
contact [email protected]
Eric Tao
TechNet Community Support

Load balancing on iplanet

What are the capabilitiesof the load balancing plug-in "Resonate Command Module" for iplanet? Is this the only load balancing feature that iplanet provides.
Also, if anyone knows of other reasonable (price) load balancing solutions for iplanet web server: preferably, software based only (no load balancing hardware).
I looked at the documentation, and deduced that "resonate" alone cannot provide load balancing for iplanet web servers.
TIA,
Mo

Actually resonate is a sofware based load balancing solution. The confusion is that it doesnt come with the iplanet web server. The command module is only an interface to resonate that will tell it how to react to iplanet internals. So, you would still need to buy Resonate central dispatch for this to be any use to you. Resonate software is expensive. Expect to pay about 60k to start last I checked.
There arent that many other software load balancers that are cheap. I found one open source thing called pen. Check out http://siag.nu/pen
It's really not bad. It supports sticky lb and can actually work for any simple tcp protocol: http,https,ldap,imap,pop,etc....
The only thing is that you need to set up your own failover for pen so that if the pen process goes down another machine will service the requests.

Apache plug-in won't load balance requests evenly on cluster

I can't seem to get the Apache plug-in to actually do round-robin load balancing
of HTTP
requests. It does random-robin, as I like to call it, since the plug-in will usually
hit all the
servers in the cluster but in a random fashion.
I've got three managed servers:
192.168.1.5:8001 (WL6 on Linux) 192.168.1.2:8001 (WL6 on Linux) 192.168.1.7:8001
(WL6 on Linux)
Admin server on 192.168.1.7:7000 (WL6 on W2k)
My Apache server is 1.3.9 (RedHat SSL) on 192.168.1.52.
The log file for each servers has something like this:
####<Apr 19, 2001 1:18:54 AM MDT> <Info> <Cluster> <neptune> <cluster1server1>
<main> <system> <> <000102> <Joined cluster cluster1 at address 225.0.0.5 on port
8001>
####<Apr 19, 2001 1:19:31 AM MDT> <Info> <Cluster> <neptune> <cluster1server1>
<ExecuteThread: '9' for queue: 'default'> <> <> <000127> <Adding
3773576126129840579S:192.168.1.2:[8001,8001,7002,7002,8001,7002,-1]:192.168.1.52
to the cluster> ####<Apr 19, 2001 1:19:31 AM MDT> <Info> <Cluster> <neptune>
<cluster1server1> <ExecuteThread: '11' for queue: 'default'> <> <> <000127> <Adding
-6393447100509727955S:192.168.1.5:[8001,8001,7002,7002,8001,7002,-1]:192.168.1.52
to the cluster>
So I believe I have correctly created a cluster, although I did not bother to
assign
replication groups for HTTP session replication (yet).
The Apache debug output indicates it knows about all three servers and I can see
it
doing the "random-robin" load balancing. Here is the output:
Thu Apr 19 00:20:53 2001 Initializing lastIndex=2 for a list of length=3 Thu Apr
19
00:20:53 2001 Init Srvr# [1] = [192.168.1.2:8001] load=1077584792 isGood=1077590272
numSk ip=134940256 Thu Apr 19 00:20:53 2001 Init Srvr# [2] = [192.168.1.5:8001]
load=1077584792 isGood=1077590272 numSk ip=134940256 Thu Apr 19 00:20:53 2001
Init Srvr# [3] = [192.168.1.7:8001] load=1077584792 isGood=1077590272 numSk
ip=134940256 Thu Apr 19 00:20:53 2001 INFO: SSL is not configured Thu Apr 19
00:20:53 2001 Now trying whatever is on the list; ci->canUseSrvrList = 1 Thu Apr
19
00:20:53 2001 INFO: New NON-SSL URL Thu Apr 19 00:20:53 2001 general list: trying
connect to '192.168.1.7'/8001 Thu Apr 19 00:20:53 2001 Connected to 192.168.1.7:8001
Thu Apr 19 00:20:53 2001 INFO: sysSend 320 Thu Apr 19 00:20:53 2001 INFO:
Reader::fill(): first=0 last=0 toRead=4096 Thu Apr 19 00:21:06 2001 parsed all
headers
OK Thu Apr 19 00:21:06 2001 Initializing lastIndex=1 for a list of length=3 Thu
Apr 19
00:21:06 2001 ###Response### : Srvr# [1] = [192.168.1.5:8001] load=1077584792
isGood=1077 546628 numSkip=1077546628 Thu Apr 19 00:21:06 2001 ###Response###
: Srvr# [2] = [192.168.1.2:8001] load=1077584792 isGood=1077 546628
numSkip=1077546628 Thu Apr 19 00:21:06 2001 ###Response### : Srvr# [3] =
[192.168.1.7:8001] load=1077584792 isGood=1077 546628 numSkip=1077546628 Thu Apr
19 00:21:06 2001 INFO: Reader::fill(): first=0 last=0 toRead=4096
Basically, the lastIndex=XXX appears to be random. It may do round-robin for 4
or 5
connections but then always it resorts to randomly directing new connections.
This is what the configuration looks like using the plug-in's
/weblogic?__WebLogicBridgeConfig URL:
Weblogic Apache Bridge Configuration parameters:
WebLogic Cluster List:
1.Host: '192.168.1.2' Port: 8001 Primary
General Server List:
1.Host: '192.168.1.2' Port: 8001
2.Host: '192.168.1.5' Port: 8001
3.Host: '192.168.1.7' Port: 8001
DefaultFileName: ''
PathTrim: '/weblogic'
PathPrepend: '' ConnectTimeoutSecs:
'10' ConnectRetrySecs: '2'
HungServerRecoverSecs: '300'
MaxPostSize: '0'
StatPath: false
CookieName: JSESSIONID
Idempotent:
ON FileCaching:
ON ErrorPage: ''
DisableCookie2Server: OFF
Can someone please help to shed some light on this? I would be really grateful,
thanks!
Jeff

Right - it means that the only configuration which can do perfect round-robin is a
single plugin (non-Apache, or single-process Apache) - all others essentially do random
(sort of, but it can skew test results during first N requests).
Robert Patrick <[email protected]> wrote:
Dimitri,
The way Apache works is that is spawns a bunch of child processes and the parent process
that listens on the port delegates the processing of each request to one of the child
processes. This means that the load-balancing dome by the plugin before the session ID is
assigned does not do perfect round-robining because there are multiple copies of the plugin
loaded in the multiple child processes. This situation is similar to the one you would get
by running multiple proxy servers on different machines with the NES/iPlanet and IIS
plugins.
As I pointed out in my response to Jeff, attempting to address this problem with IPC
machanisms would only solve the single machine problem and most people deploy multiple
proxy servers to avoid a single point of failure...
Hope this helps,
Robert
Dimitri Rakitine wrote:
Hrm. This is strange - I thought that all the information nesessary for a
'sticky' load-balancing (primary/secondary) is contained in the cookie/session info,
so, the particular plug-in implementation should not make any difference. For
load-balancing - statistically, given large enough sampling base, Apache plug-in
should perform just a well as NS one (unless apache is somehow misconfigured and
calls fork() for each new request).
Jeff Calog <[email protected]> wrote:
Robert,
Thanks for the sanity reply, you are definitely right. I used Netscape 3.0 on
Win2k and it did perfect round-robin load balancing to my servers.
<raving>
BEA - ARE YOU LISTENING? STOP TELLING PEOPLE YOUR APACHE PLUG-IN IS A VIABLE
LOAD BALANCING SOLUTION! It's worthless for load balancing!
</raving>
In some tests, as many as 90% of my connections/requests would be sent to a single
server. There should be something in the release notes like "By the way, the
Apache plug-in is only advertised as doing round-robin load balancing, in reality
it doesn't work worth a darn".
I'm surprised they don't used shared memory or some other technique (pipes, sockets,
signals, writing to /tmp, anything) for interprocess communication to fix that.
Jeff
Robert Patrick <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes, the problem lies in the fact that Apache uses multiple processes
instead of
multiple threads to process requests. Therefore, you end up with multiple
processes all
with the WebLogic plugin loaded into them (and they cannot see one another)...
Hopefully, Apache 2.0 when it comes out will allow the plugin to do a
better job...
Jeff Calog wrote:
I can't seem to get the Apache plug-in to actually do round-robin loadbalancing
of HTTP
requests. It does random-robin, as I like to call it, since the plug-inwill usually
hit all the
servers in the cluster but in a random fashion.
I've got three managed servers:
192.168.1.5:8001 (WL6 on Linux) 192.168.1.2:8001 (WL6 on Linux) 192.168.1.7:8001
(WL6 on Linux)
Admin server on 192.168.1.7:7000 (WL6 on W2k)
My Apache server is 1.3.9 (RedHat SSL) on 192.168.1.52.
The log file for each servers has something like this:
####<Apr 19, 2001 1:18:54 AM MDT> <Info> <Cluster> <neptune> <cluster1server1>
<main> <system> <> <000102> <Joined cluster cluster1 at address 225.0.0.5on port
8001>
####<Apr 19, 2001 1:19:31 AM MDT> <Info> <Cluster> <neptune> <cluster1server1>
<ExecuteThread: '9' for queue: 'default'> <> <> <000127> <Adding
3773576126129840579S:192.168.1.2:[8001,8001,7002,7002,8001,7002,-1]:192.168.1.52
to the cluster> ####<Apr 19, 2001 1:19:31 AM MDT> <Info> <Cluster><neptune>
<cluster1server1> <ExecuteThread: '11' for queue: 'default'> <> <><000127> <Adding
-6393447100509727955S:192.168.1.5:[8001,8001,7002,7002,8001,7002,-1]:192.168.1.52
to the cluster>
So I believe I have correctly created a cluster, although I did notbother to
assign
replication groups for HTTP session replication (yet).
The Apache debug output indicates it knows about all three serversand I can see
it
doing the "random-robin" load balancing. Here is the output:
Thu Apr 19 00:20:53 2001 Initializing lastIndex=2 for a list of length=3Thu Apr
19
00:20:53 2001 Init Srvr# [1] = [192.168.1.2:8001] load=1077584792 isGood=1077590272
numSk ip=134940256 Thu Apr 19 00:20:53 2001 Init Srvr# [2] = [192.168.1.5:8001]
load=1077584792 isGood=1077590272 numSk ip=134940256 Thu Apr 19 00:20:532001
Init Srvr# [3] = [192.168.1.7:8001] load=1077584792 isGood=1077590272numSk
ip=134940256 Thu Apr 19 00:20:53 2001 INFO: SSL is not configured ThuApr 19
00:20:53 2001 Now trying whatever is on the list; ci->canUseSrvrList= 1 Thu Apr
19
00:20:53 2001 INFO: New NON-SSL URL Thu Apr 19 00:20:53 2001 generallist: trying
connect to '192.168.1.7'/8001 Thu Apr 19 00:20:53 2001 Connected to192.168.1.7:8001
Thu Apr 19 00:20:53 2001 INFO: sysSend 320 Thu Apr 19 00:20:53 2001INFO:
Reader::fill(): first=0 last=0 toRead=4096 Thu Apr 19 00:21:06 2001parsed all
headers
OK Thu Apr 19 00:21:06 2001 Initializing lastIndex=1 for a list oflength=3 Thu
Apr 19
00:21:06 2001 ###Response### : Srvr# [1] = [192.168.1.5:8001] load=1077584792
isGood=1077 546628 numSkip=1077546628 Thu Apr 19 00:21:06 2001 ###Response###
: Srvr# [2] = [192.168.1.2:8001] load=1077584792 isGood=1077 546628
numSkip=1077546628 Thu Apr 19 00:21:06 2001 ###Response### : Srvr#[3] =
[192.168.1.7:8001] load=1077584792 isGood=1077 546628 numSkip=1077546628Thu Apr
19 00:21:06 2001 INFO: Reader::fill(): first=0 last=0 toRead=4096
Basically, the lastIndex=XXX appears to be random. It may do round-robinfor 4
or 5
connections but then always it resorts to randomly directing new connections.
This is what the configuration looks like using the plug-in's
/weblogic?__WebLogicBridgeConfig URL:
Weblogic Apache Bridge Configuration parameters:
WebLogic Cluster List:
1.Host: '192.168.1.2' Port: 8001 Primary
General Server List:
1.Host: '192.168.1.2' Port: 8001
2.Host: '192.168.1.5' Port: 8001
3.Host: '192.168.1.7' Port: 8001
DefaultFileName: ''
PathTrim: '/weblogic'
PathPrepend: '' ConnectTimeoutSecs:
'10' ConnectRetrySecs: '2'
HungServerRecoverSecs: '300'
MaxPostSize: '0'
StatPath: false
CookieName: JSESSIONID
Idempotent:
ON FileCaching:
ON ErrorPage: ''
DisableCookie2Server: OFF
Can someone please help to shed some light on this? I would be reallygrateful,
thanks!
Jeff
Dimitri--
Dimitri

What is load balancer in fms cluster and how to configure it and testing fms clustering

Hey guys,
I am new to fms and clustering the fms server in origin-edge mode.But i am confused actually what is load balancer and how to configure it .
After configuring , how to test and confirm that fms clustering is working.Is there any one can help me, plz....................
thanks in Advance........

Flash Media Server does not come bundled with a load balancer. In theory, one deploys FMS in an edge/origin configuration like this
1 Origin ----> N Edges ------> Customer Traffic
The idea here is that N edges shoulder the load for most customers with a single origin coordinating resources like VOD content or script access. The issue that remains is "how do I spread customers over the N edges" and that's where load balancing comes in. Most customers use a prepackaged load balancing solution - as an Adobe staffer I can't recommend any of them over the other, but you should be able to get some recommendations here along with just googling for it. The short answer contained here though is, you're going to have to find one outside of FMS if that's needed for your setup.
Asa

Multiple dgraph clustering (load balancing) OOTB available?

Hello,
We have 2 dgraphs running in parallel having the same data to share the load of the clients.
I would like to know if there is any OOTB solution provided by Endeca where in these two dgraphs can share the load. OR I need to use an external load balancer for the same?
If there is any document that explains the configuration for OOTB Endeca solution, please let me know
Thanks!

Hi,
yes I know...
i tried to check if they were still available...but found none,
that's why I said if you want me to send them email me ...(I downloaded them from Eden ) and the files aren't too big
regards
Saleh
29/11/12 : copy of the document called Simple MDEX Load Balancing with Apache HTTP Server (Endeca)
Endeca Solution Article Simple MDEX Load Balancing with Apache HTTP Server
Endeca Solution Article
Simple MDEX Load Balancing with Apache HTTP Server
By Robert Dennis
Last Updated: December 2010
Endeca Product Versions: 5.0+
This document describes how to set up a simple load balancing and failover solution using Apache HTTP server. This provides a cost effective mechanism leveraging widely available open source technologies to address simple infrastructure needs. This document includes the following sections:
 Introduction
 Configuration Steps
 References
Endeca Solution Article Simple MDEX Load Balancing with Apache HTTP Server
Endeca Confidential 2 of 5
Introduction
Load balancers are the preferred solution for providing scalability, redundancy, and fail-over for MDEX Engine queries. Typically, load balancing and failover are accomplished with the use of dedicated load balancing hardware. For some Endeca implementations, however, a robust mechanism for load balancing may not be available or required by the customer. For more information on the basics of load balancing an Endeca application, see the “Endeca Load Balancing Best Practices” Solution Article available on EDeN.
This document describes the configuration steps involved in leveraging Apache’s default load balancing mechanisms to provide a simple load balancing solution for an Endeca application. In this scenario, Apache will sit between the Endeca presentation API housed in a web application and redundant MDEX engines. Apache performs the duties of a simple load balancer and failover broker, managing query requests from the application tier to specific MDEX engines.
Configuration Steps
The described configuration leverages Apache 2.2 HTTP Server as the load balancing mechanism between two identical MDEX engines all residing on a single server. The sample configuration expects the Apache HTTP server to be listening on port 5555 and the MDEX engines to be listening on ports 8000 and 8001. These can be changed as appropriate for a given environment.
1. In the Apache httpd.conf, enable the server for listening on port 5555.
Endeca Solution Article Simple MDEX Load Balancing with Apache HTTP Server
Endeca Confidential 3 of 5
2. Enable the following modules by un-commenting the appropriate loadmodule statements in the httpd.conf file. These modules include: mod_proxy, mod_proxy_balancer, mod_proxy_connect, mod_proxy_http, mod_negotiation.
3. Include the httpd-vhosts.conf file by un-commenting the appropriate line in the httpd.conf file.
4. Save the httpd.conf file and open the httpd-vhosts.conf file. Append the below information and save the file.
Endeca Solution Article Simple MDEX Load Balancing with Apache HTTP Server
Endeca Confidential 4 of 5
NameVirtualHost *:5555 <VirtualHost *:5555> ServerName localhost ProxyPass / balancer://dgraphs/ ProxyPassReverse / balancer://dgraphs/ <Proxy balancer://dgraphs> BalancerMember http://localhost:8000 loadfactor=1 retry=0 BalancerMember http://localhost:8001 loadfactor=1 retry=0 </Proxy> </VirtualHost> <Location /balancer-manager> SetHandler balancer-manager </Location>
The “retry” parameter associated with Balance Members disables the period of inactivity for a particular worker after Apache determines it is offline. The default is 60 seconds. It is recommended that this is set to a low number such as 0.
In environments where particular MDEX engines are targeted for additional load, the “loadfactor” parameter associated with Balance Members can be adjusted. Higher values ensure that the load balancing algorithm that is used will route the traffic load accordingly to specific Balance Members.
5. Restart Apache.
6. Within the UI application, configure the host and port of the HttpENEConnection to the host and port of the load balancer (e.g. localhost:5555).
Endeca Solution Article Simple MDEX Load Balancing with Apache HTTP Server
Endeca Confidential 5 of 5
Apache HTTP Server is now properly configured to serve as a load balancer for the MDEX Engines.
References
“Endeca Load Balancing Best Practices” Solution Article (EDeN)
Apache Module mod_proxy
Apache Module mod_proxy_balancer
Apache Module mod_proxy_connect
Apache Module mod_proxy_http
Apache Module mod_negotiation
Edited by: sabdelhalim on Nov 28, 2012 5:46 PM

Load Balancing / CF Edition Question

Hi,
I know very little about load-balancing, so please forgive
the beginner question.
If I don't plan on using ColdFusion's ClusterCATS load
balancing software
solution for multiple web servers, but instead am going to
use a hardware
load balancing solution instead, can I get away with
purchasing the ColdFusion
Standard Edition for each server(?) or would I have to
purchase the ColdFusion
Enterprise Edition for each server to make things work?
Multiple purchases of Enterprise costs so much, I just want
to save money if possible.
Thanks in advance,
Joe

Joe_Krako wrote:
>
> I know very little about load-balancing, so please
forgive the beginner
> question.
>
> If I don't plan on using ColdFusion's ClusterCATS load
balancing software
> solution for multiple web servers, but instead am going
to use a hardware
> load balancing solution instead, can I get away with
purchasing the ColdFusion
> Standard Edition for each server(?)
Yes. You will have to configure your load balancer to use
sticky
sessions if you want to use session variables and you will
not have some
of the scalability features of CF Enterprise, but it will
work.
I don't see any requirements to buy Enterprise edition
licenses in the
EULA, but check that for yourself:
http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/server/
Jochem
Jochem van Dieten
Adobe Community Expert for ColdFusion

Using StoneBeat WebCluster load balancing with WebLogic

          Hi,
          I have done some testing of WebLogic Server with my company's StoneBeat WebCluster
          distributed load balancing software. This might be one more option to consider
          as a load balancing solution for WLS. It is advanced in the sense that load balancing
          is really dynamic, there are no single-points of failure (distributed architecture)
          and there is a very good, configurable test subsystem that runs on each cluster
          node to check for overload situations, HW/OS failures, ...
          In the initial testing, the WebCluster load balancing works with WebLogic replication,
          although there are some cases that need mroe consideration (please see below).
          I had to get a patch to WLS6SP1 on NT to make WLS' multicast work when there are
          several NICs on the cluster nodes.
          However, there is one case which causes problems:
          - I have 3 cluster nodes
          - P: 2, S: 3 (SessionServlet = 1)
          - 2: offline - P: 3, S: 1 (SessionServlet = 2; WebCluster randomly selected a
          new node to handle the connection)
          - 2: online - P: 2, S: ? (SessionServlet = 3, WebCluster redistributes the load
          when a node goes online)
          - 2: offline
          - P: 3, S: 1 (__SessionServlet = 1__) NB!
          The log messages show that when node 2 comes back online it retrieves the replica
          from the secondary (node 1) and not from the primary (node 3). After a while (5-6
          minutes), node 3 tries to update the replica on node 1. Node 1 considers this
          a stale update request and removes the Primary 16... (node name) and then the
          secondary for 16... (the replicated object). Then there's a message (still on
          node 1) that it is unable to find object 16... Back on node 3 the primary for
          16... is removed.
          From the WLS6 documentation (under the discussion of using replication with external
          HW load balancing solutions) I thought that this case would have been handled:
          - it is stated that after the failure of a node, if the HWLB box sends the next
          request to a node where there is no replica, WLS is able to retrieve the replica
          - to be fair, this is what happens: when node 2 came back online, it retrieved
          the replica from node 1 (the secondary) - I suppose that there is an assumption
          that if a request arrives to a node without a replica, the primary __must have
          failed__
          Is there any way to get around this problem?
          Admittedly, WebCluster has a problem in that the stickyness of connections is
          not perfect: - when a node goes online, a connection that was correctly persisted
          (based on either source-ip or source-network address) may be moved to a new node
          since the load is redistributed. Our load balancing is very dynamic, but doesn't
          maintain a list of who is connected to which node when resistribution takes place
          Regards,
          Frank Olsen
          Stonesoft


Rick,
You may want to look at the Alteon and F5 configuration we have on edocs.
Take a look at the following URLs for a possible solution
http://edocs.bea.com/wls/docs61/cluster/alteon.html#591902
http://edocs.bea.com/wls/docs61/cluster/bigip.html#591902
Chuck Nelson
DRE
BEA Technical Support

Load Balancing in Clustered Weblogic 12c

Hi,
Weblogic.........: 12.1.3
OS..................: Oracle Enterprise Linux 6.3
We have configured a Clustered Weblogic (2 virtual servers) successfully. Now we are searching for some good Load Balancing solutions. I've tested a ProxyServlet, but it didin't really solve the question, because this kind of load balancing only balances apps in the same server.
Is it mandatory to use a third-party solution, like an Apache Httpd Server, or Big IP? In fact, i would like to know initially for some viable solutions to provide a load balancing solution to a 2-server Weblogic 12c Solution.
Thanks in advance.

Hi,
It is not manadatory, and it is possible to load balance apps on different servers with the ProxyServlet. It's only that this will be running on a server from where the others need to be accesable.
Also, it depends on what you are using this environment for. The ProxyServlet is a good solution if you want to replicate an Enterprise environment and test the load balancing with a WebLogic cluster. However, if you want to run Production applications in this environment, then consider the above suggestions: either a WebServer or a dedicated external Load Balancer.
Regards

Distributed HA cluster with load-balancing and failover: advice?

My workplace has a Xeon Xserve, which acts as our primary external server, with an attached ActiveStorage XRAID. We have just purchased a second Xserve/XRAID set to act as a mirror, which we will colocate. Both have Leopard Server installed, along with an array of additional software.
What we want to do is have both servers load-balance between the two, with failover in case of a server or XRAID fault. I plan on using RSYNC to mirror static files between the two, and I'm looking into PostgreSQL replication and load-balancing solutions for our database. I gather that Apache supports web-server failover and load-balancing, as well. But, that still leaves the actual host and network setup to arrange.
Does Leopard server support such a thing? The only information I found on IP failover instructs the user to place the two servers on the same subnet, directly connected via ethernet cable; obviously, this would not work in my case.
Ideally, what we'd end up with is a situation in which the two systems kept each other in sync, both in static files and database data, and load-balanced between themselves; in cases of failure, the remaining system would transparently assume all duties until the other was restored, at which time they would resynchronize
Any suggestions on how I could arrange such a thing?

Interesting. Does this DNS-based approach support session tracking, though? I would need to have a user directed to just one of the two servers for the duration of their session, to avoid having to synchronize temporary files and such.
You can't have it both ways. You need to build tolerance into the app.
At the simplest level where you run all traffic to one site and use the second site as a failover/standby site you'll be OK most of the time - all users will go to the same server and their sessions will be intact.
However, under any failover situation (your primary site is down for some reason), there is going to be some level of session traffic that it going to switch over to the other site. If your site depends on sessions then you're going to need to tolerate this kind of situation - your app will need to be able to fail gracefully if a user comes in with an invalid session cookie.
Note, though, that this may be less of an issue than you at first think - all DNS clients will cache DNS data for whatever TTL you set. This means that if a user looks up your site name and you return an IP address with a 30 minute TTL, then that user is going to use the same IP address for the next 30 minutes and isn't going to ask the server again. This should negate most chance of a user suddenly switching from one server location to the other in mid-session.
The trick comes in setting the DNS TTL low enough to effect a failover, yet not so long that you impact performance - e.g. you don't want the user to perform a DNS lookup on every page load. You may find that 10 minutes is appropriate. Just bear in mind that this affects how long a user could see your site 'down' before the failover DNS kicks in. Clearly you don't want to set the DNS TTL to a day since that may prevent the user switching to the secondary site for 24 hours by which time, hopefully, the primary site is back up, anyway.
The 'right' TTL value may take some analysis on your traffic to see how long a typical user 'session' is. If the average user spends 20 minutes on your site, then it would make sense to set your TTL to somewhere around 20 minutes to give the best chance of their entire session staying on the same server.

IP failover, load balancing and notification...

Pretend I have the following setup/hardware:
Two intel xserves running 10.4. One is for http traffic the other https. The http server contains a static html website while the other server has a large dynamic database driven website and all of its pages require ssl encryption. I'll refer to the first as server 1 and server 2 for the other.
Now I want to implement a solution for providing high availability and performance.
If I wanted IP failover I would need two additional servers, one for the first webserver and the second for the other. Likewise if I wanted to address load balancing I would also need two additional servers, one for server 1 the other for server 2. Now my questions:
1) It seems implementing load balancing as described on page 32 of Apples High Availability pdf that this would also provide high availability like IP failover does. If two additional servers were purchased to provide high availability via a load balancing strategy would there be any need to implement IP failover? Does load balancing provide the same benefits as IP failover when talking about high availability? When if ever would one need to implement both strategies?
2) Can you somehow provide IP failover with only one server as the backup using the setup above (a third server to provide IP failover for both servers 1 and 2)? Assume the third server has all the data of both server 1 and server 2.
3) Is it possible to have Server Admin or Raid admin notify you of a problem via calling your cell phone or sending you a text message as opposed to only email, maybe via a third party solution? I think (not 100% sure) APC offers this when the power left in their batteries reaches a certain level.
Thanks.
G5 xserve Mac OS X (10.4.8)

1) There's generally no need to implement IP Failover at the server level if you're already using a separate load balancing solution. The load balancer should be able to take care of dealing with a failed server.
2) Good question - it's not clear whether IPFailover will failover for one machine or more than one.
3) Most cellphone providers offer an email-to-SMS gateway, allowing you to send an email to an email address that's forwarded to your phone as a text message. Check your cellphone provider for details on what that email address might be (e.g. Cingular uses <phonenumber>@cingularme.com, Verizon uses <phonenumber>@msg.myvzw.com, etc.

Load Balancing Solution

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for