Load sharing/balancing between 2 Service Providers

Hi,
I have a scenario where I have the following and this is repeated at different sites globally.
CE1-----------PE1_SP1---MPLS cloud
|
CE1---standby--PE2_SP1---MPLS cloud
CE2-----------PE1_SP2----MPLS Cloud
|
CE2---standby--PE2_SP2---MPLS Cloud
2 different service providers and we require load sharing/balancing to both SP1 and SP2.
If either of the SP's PE router is down it should bring up the standby link.
2 ASN, not sure if I can load share different prefixes in this scenario.
Will the applications fail?
Will the traffic flow be symmetric ?
Any help is very much appreciated.
Thanks,
Paul

Hello Paul,
if you are using a single CE router on each site.
to get load-balancing on your CEx:
router bgp X
maximum-paths 2
eBGP load-balancing is easier so 2 ISP ASN is fine
Verify that you have flow based load-balancing and everything should be fine.
Notice that you have a failure on site N of provider1 you can be able to detect it in all remote sites only if they are receiving the routes of all the sites. If receiving a default route there's no way for other sites to detect the failure.
If receiving all the prefixes after MP-BGP convergence in ISP1 site N's prefixes will be withdrawn and will be reachable only via ISP2.
To use an active/standby
on all Cex
router bgp x
neighbor PE-ISP1 weigth 500
neighbor PE-ISP1 fast-external-fallover
in this way until a prefix is present in ISP1 MP-BGP traffic is sent via ISP1
If using two CE in each site things are a little more complex and you need an iBGP session between them.
Hope to help
Giuseppe

Similar Messages

IMessage issue between different service providers?

I am having problems with sending/receiving iMessages between different service providers. If you start an iMessage conversation on an iPad2 you're supposed to be able to continue it on an iPhone 4s or other ios 5 device, but it only does so if I iMessage to someone who also has AT&T, not Verizon.

Thank you. However, phone numbers work between AT&T as I have successfully done so on many occasions. I will try email addresses for iMessages to Verizon and Sprint users to see if that my problem.

Is there auto load balance between 2 active webi services?

Hi ,
I have not seen any kind documentation from SAP whether BOBJ can auto load balance requests in round robin fashion between 2 or more webi services.
The only theory or belief that i see & hear is that upon reaching the max connection threshold of one webi service, bobj will start diverting the next requests to second webi service.
So now i am looking for some kind of clarification on whether auto load balance happens between multiple webi services in round robin fashion or not.
Please share if any one has idea about this.
Thanks,
Srikar

Thanks to everyone who tried to respond to my question.
But i just got below response from SAP:
=====================================================
I would like to inform you that CMS distributes the load (jobs) to
servers according to the server availability (maximum jobs allocated
to individual server). This is a generally how load is balanced
between CMS and various job servers and processing servers.
=====================================================
Now i am more confused. I personally did some little testing by creating 2 webi services and tried to view multiple webi reports. What i observed is it does pick up different webi services only while at the start of report viewing. But once it picks up perticualr webi service, that same user session is sticking to previously picked up webi service and always goes to the same process for processing.
But now SAP response is bit more confusing.
Thanks,
Srikar

Load balancing between two routers

I have two routers connected through the LAN connection. The first one is using as routing protocol EIGRP, the other one is part of the managed service and I do not have access to it. I would like to make a load balancing between the two of them by redistributing the static routes in EIGRP. When I tried this, I am loosing the EIGRP entry for this route in the routing table. I would like to have both of them , so we could have traffic sharing. I appreciate if you give me any hints.

Raju,
you have two choices as far as I can see. If you want to use static routing over the WAN to your branch, you could duplicate your static routes to the branch and point them to the secondary router. You will have two identical sets of static routes in the primary router, one set pointing to the WAN interface and the other one pointing to the secondary router.
ip route x.x.x.x "WAN-interface"
ip route x.x.x.x "secondary router"
ip route y.y.y.y "WAN-interface"
ip route y.y.y.y "secondary router"
etc.
As a result the primary router will have two routes to the branch and will load-balance. If one next-hop fails (either the WAN interface or the secondary router), only the other will be used. If the next-hop comes back up, load-balancing will resume.
The other choice would be to use EIGRP over the WAN, and make sure the two routers become EIGRP neighbors. Then you can use the "variance" command to achieve unequal cost load-balancing between the two routers. Let me know if you need more information about this, but i think static routes will be sufficient in your situation.
HTH, Thomas

Discussion on load-balance and load-sharing

Hi, I found a article, which discuss the difference between load-balance and load-sharing. I think the explanation is pretty good, please see below. But I still have a question: how can we decide to choose one the both balance in the production environment ? Thank you
"In short, load balancing tries to distribute traffic evenly over multiple paths, whereas, load sharing intends to do it (for the lack of a better term) equally. True load balancing is difficult to achieve. For example, let's say there were two links (100 mbps and 300 mpbs) and a router needed to send out 600 mbps of traffic. Load balancing would distribute the traffic evenly, sending 300 mbps on each link. On the contrary, load sharing would divide the traffic equally based on the available resources, sending 200 mbps on the slower link and 400 mbps on the faster one. "

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
That's not how Cisco uses the terms, and generically they are often used almost interchangeably.
Cisco uses load balancing as the catch all for how a single L3 device routes across multiple paths to the same destination. Equal metrics or equal actual load distribution are not required. Most often, load balancing will be discussed with ECMP, but unequal path loading balancing will include Cisco's proprietary IGPs, such as EIGRP.
Cisco uses load sharing when using multiple paths when a single L3 devices doesn't normally route across multiple paths or multiple L3 devices are involved. Cisco load sharing discussions usually revolve around BGP.
Generically, I would say load balancing has more of a dynamic aspect to it, i.e. something is trying to actively balance traffic across multiple paths, while load sharing might mean multiple paths are utilized but not actively dynamically balanced.
I'm unsure what's your question with a production environment.

Load-Balancing between Foreign and two Anchors

Hi, we have two foreign controllers (one active, one standby) and two anchor controllers. All APs are connected to the active foreign controller. The layer 3 networks for the wlan clients on both anchors are different for the same SSID. SSID: Internet, anchor 1: Subnet A, anchor 2: Subnet B. So when a client is getting anchored to Anchor 1, the clients will get an ip from subnet A and when the client is getting anchored to anchor 2, the client will get an ip from subnet B.
This is so far not a big problem because we only have a few accesspoints in some rooms. But what will happen, when we have a full covered wlan and the client roams from one AP to the other AP? Is there a possibility, that the client will anchored to a different anchor while roaming? I think this will result in a lack of connectivity because without a real disconnect the client will not ask for a new IP address.
Other question: Is it possible to disable this load-balancing between anchor controllers? Or can i make a client sticky to only one anchor as long as an access-session is established?
All controllers are 5760 with 3.3.3 software.

Hi acontes,
It's an interesting question.
In this case, if all AP's are on WLC-A and there is no possibility that an L3 inter-subnet roam will occur between WLC-A and WLC-B, I would just forward WLC-A to Anchor A and WLC-B (in the event of fail over) to Anchor B (if Anchors reside on different subnets). If you must specify Anchor A and Anchor B on each WLC for redundancy purposes, it's important to understand the guidelines and limitations with regard to Foreign / Anchor Design.
As Scott mentioned, the limitation with Anchoring design is that there is no primary / secondary configuration for an Anchor on the Foreign WLC.
If WLC-A has two entries (1) for Anchor-A and (2) for Anchor-B, the EoIP tunnels are establish and load-balancing occurs in a round robin fashion.
Keep in mind the following with regard to guest N+1 redundancy:
•A given foreign controller load balances wireless client connections across the list of anchor controllers configured for the guest WLAN. There is currently no method to designate one anchor as primary with one or more secondary anchors.
•Wireless clients that are associated with an anchor WLC that becomes unreachable are re-associated with another anchor defined for the WLAN. When this happens, assuming web authentication is being used, the client is redirected to the web portal authentication page and required to re-submit their credentials.
Since traffic is transported at Layer 2 via EoIP, the first point at which DHCP services can be implemented is either locally on the anchor controller or the controller can relay client DHCP requests to an external server. Since the IP address directly correlates to the DMZ subnet or the interface where the traffic egresses, it is possible for some clients to get IP's from both Subnet A or Subnet B in the event that WLC-A is building EoIP to both anchors.
1) What happens if my clients roam?
Nothing... since all AP's are on WLC-A, it's Intra-Controller Roaming
Each controller supports same-controller client roaming across access points managed by the same controller. This roaming is transparent to the client as the session is sustained, and the client continues using the same DHCP-assigned or client-assigned IP address. The controller provides DHCP functionality with a relay function. Same-controller roaming is supported in single-controller deployments and in multiple-controller deployments.
Would it be better to choose the same DHCP Pool on both anchors?
It's probably better to have redundant anchors on the same subnet, but it's not required.
3) How would you design this :-)
WLC-A <--EoIP--> Anchor A (DHCP Pool A)
WLC-A <--EoIP--> Anchor B (DHCP Pool A)
It's important to remeber what Scott mentioned about the lack of a primary / secondary relationship. If multiple controllers are added as mobility anchors for a particular WLAN on a foreign controller, the foreign controller internally sorts the controller by their IP address. The controller with the lowest IP address is the first anchor. For example, a typical ordered list would be 172.16.7.25, and 172.16.7.28. If the first client associates to the foreign controller's anchored WLAN, the client database entry is sent to the first anchor controller in the list, the second client is sent to the second controller in the list, and so on, until the end of the anchor list is reached. The process is repeated starting with the first anchor controller.
If any of the anchor controller is detected to be down, all the clients anchored to the controller are deauthenticated, and the clients then go through the authentication/anchoring process again in a round-robin manner with the remaining controller in the anchor list. This functionality is also extended to regular mobility clients through mobility failover. This feature enables mobility group members to detect failed members and reroute clients.

Load balancing between application server and database

Hi,
is there any load balancing between the application server and the database? Consider we have a single instance of an application server that sends database queries from different clients to the database. Are the requests queued in some way at the application server, allowing to control the flow of the queries (e.g. queries from "more important" clients might be sent with a higher priority)?
Thanks for your help!

Hi Victor/Jim/Volker,
Thanks a lot for all the responses..
Just wanted to let you guys know that my installation finished successfully.
The thing which confused me was that my Qtime, Qdate and everything else was showing correct values..
Well, my problem I set the environmental variable PASE_TZ to the EST time zone on a SYS level using WRKENVVAR>F4>SYS and added the variable. I logged off and the sidofr logged off, but one user which should have logged off and didn't was the "SAPINST"(my installation user) which was logged in the subsystem TMKSVR00.
Even when I had closed the SAPINST installlation program, the user doesn't log off...it just sits there until and unless u shut him out of the system using the option 4 on wrkactjob for ending the JOB(SAPINST logged in the system below the TMKSVR00 subsystem)
So since the SAPISNT user never logged of, his environmental variables were not initilized properly, even after the changes...
This thought came to me almost after a 6 hours of wasting my time searching for notes here and there...
I think when u end/stop the install in SAPINST, the SAPINST user should log off the AS400 system, but I have noticed, it never does...although when u restart the installation, if u have noticed it shows you the log on for the SAPINST user in the TMKSVR screen...
Its kind of buggy, I would say...
I have noticed, that even when I log on to AS400 from home or from a remote PC using Emulator, it shows me logged in the subsystem and even after i have logged of, it still shows me there...
Anyway, thanks a lot guys...for all your responses..
Just wanted to let you know all.
Thanks
Abhi

Load balancing SMA web service and SMA end point URL

Hi,
We have set up the recommended 3 servers with Azure Pack, SMA Web Service and Runbook Worker. We are now wanting to configure the Azure pack portal to setup the SMA endpoint url for the web service. Before we do that, we are assuming we should
load balance the web services to answer on 1 url (ie, smaws.domainname.com).
1. Is there any guidance or things to consider when load balancing the 3 web services to answer to 1 url. We will probably use f5 since that is what we use.
2. The end point url that we configure for Azure Pack automation should be this load balanced URL correct?
3. Should we have the Azure pack installed on just one of the servers or all 3. We did all 3 but it seems like server2 and 3 just redirect to 1 anyway so I am assuming the URL for Azure pack is stored in a db somewhere.
4. Are there any other components of SMA/Azure Pack that should also be load balanced?
Thanks
Thanks Lance

So in this case you need to register the SMA Runbook Workers (do this on machine 1):
$webService
= "https://localhost"
$workers
= (Get-SmaRunbookWorkerDeployment
-WebServiceEndpoint
$webService).ComputerName
if($workers
-isnot [system.array]) {$workers
= @($workers)}
$workers
+= "MachineName2"
$workers += "MachineName3"
New-SmaRunbookWorkerDeployment
-WebServiceEndpoint
$webService -ComputerName
$workers

Load balancing between Instance for same external IP client

Hi,
I have a azure website which is single tenant and is going to be used inside a single Domain from same region.
Now my website provide good performance till 20 concurrent request. I want to scale this so that it can reach up to 30 - 40 -100 so on.
What are the options available to achieve this. till now what i have figured out is that
1. If i increase the web site instance or on the auto scale option. It load balances between the instances on the basis of Client external I.P. but in my case all the users which are using the site shares the same external IP.
I have tested it increasing the instances doesn't make any impact on my performance results.
2. I have also looked in traffic manager but that case is valid when the clients are on different GeoLocations which is also not valid in my case.
So my basic Question is if i have a pool of different scenarios where
100 users uses 1 azure website
200 uses uses 1 azure website
1000 users uses 1 azure website
what infra should i take for each website to support this have performnace same as 100 users.
Whenever you see a reply and if you think is helpful,Vote As Helpful! And whenever you see a reply being an answer to the question of the thread, click Mark As Answer

Hi,
I would request you to configure Web hosting plan and check if it helps in increasing the performance.
It gives a set of features and capacity that you can share across your websites separately.
http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/azure-web-sites-web-hosting-plans-in-depth-overview/
Regards,
Azam Khan

Round robin DNS for load balancing between multiple network adapters (Xserve)

I'm attempting to use 'round robin' DNS to load balance between the two ethernet adapters of an Xserve.
Both ethernet adapters are connected to the same LAN and have static IP addresses of 192.168.2.250 and 192.168.2.251.
The DNS zone for the server's local domain/host (macserver.private) has a machine record with both IP addresses (set up in the Lion Server UI).
Having read up on round robin DNS, I would have expected DNS requests for 'macserver.private' to be answered with the two IP addresses ordered at random, achiving my aim of requests being served at random via each ethernet adapter.
However this doesn't seem to be the case. Doing a 'nslookup' from any of the network clients results in the two IP addresses being listed in the same order everytime. And pinging 'macserver.private' only ever results in a response from the same address.
Does anyone know why this is the case? Does Lion Server use a non-standard DNS configuration? Are there any additional settings I need to configure in Lion's DNS server to make adopt a round robin approach to responding to requests?
Thanks in advance for any help!

Be careful what you wish for
Round Robin DNS is rarely the best option for 'load balancing'. At the very least it's subject to caching at various point on the network - even at the client side, once the client looks up the address it will cache that response - this means that subsequent lookups may be served from the client's cache and not refer back to the server. Therfore any given client will always see the same address until the cache expires.
I suspect this is what you're seeing.
You can minimize this by setting a lower TTL on the records. This should result in the response being cached for a shorter period, meaning the client will make more requests to the server, with a higher change of using the 'other' address.
However, you're also going to run into issues with the server having two interfaces/addresses in the same LAN. This isn't recommended.
As Jonathon mentioned, you may be better off just bonding the two interfaces. This will provide an automatic level of dynamic load balancing without the latency of DNS caches, as well as automatic failover should one link fail (as opposed to round robin DNS which will cause 50% of requests to fail until the client cache expires and a new lookup is performed (and, even then, there's still a chance the client will try to use the failed link).

Load-balancing vs Load-sharing (L2/L3)

What is the difference in load balancing and load sharing. Can you generalize load-balancing to layer two? Or layer three protocols also do this, except BGP?
FHRPs like VRRP, GLBP, and HSRP are essentially load sharing protocols (except GLBP though). Loop prevention mechanisms like MSTP, G.8032, and REP also do not do load balancing I guess. Instead they offer a way to distribute (share) traffic over multiple links unevenly. Why do people still call it load-balancing?
While link aggregation may truly be considered load balancing. Where traffic can be balanced based on a few attributes ( src-dst/mac, ip, port).
And what role does fast-switching/process-switching play in load balancing. I am aware that these are the very processes that ultimately do load-balancing, given enough equal cost paths. Does CEF really take load balancing to another level? It still does the same job, but by caching flow data (RIB) to the CEF table, doesn't it?
Incase of IGP, load-balancing may be possible, but BGP just doesn't support it. Because it only selects one best route (?). Even with multipath, BGP advertises best path only; it does install multiple routes in routing table though. So IGP does the balancing?

What is the difference in load balancing and load sharing. Can you generalize load-balancing to layer two? Or layer three protocols also do this, except BGP?
FHRPs like VRRP, GLBP, and HSRP are essentially load sharing protocols (except GLBP though). Loop prevention mechanisms like MSTP, G.8032, and REP also do not do load balancing I guess. Instead they offer a way to distribute (share) traffic over multiple links unevenly. Why do people still call it load-balancing?
While link aggregation may truly be considered load balancing. Where traffic can be balanced based on a few attributes ( src-dst/mac, ip, port).
And what role does fast-switching/process-switching play in load balancing. I am aware that these are the very processes that ultimately do load-balancing, given enough equal cost paths. Does CEF really take load balancing to another level? It still does the same job, but by caching flow data (RIB) to the CEF table, doesn't it?
Incase of IGP, load-balancing may be possible, but BGP just doesn't support it. Because it only selects one best route (?). Even with multipath, BGP advertises best path only; it does install multiple routes in routing table though. So IGP does the balancing?

Load Balancing, User Visible Service objects, Runningman

1. Load Balancing
Load Balancing a partition has nothing to do with single or multi-threaded
behaviour of that partition. If you load balance a partition it means that
you can start 1 or more copies of that partition. How many to start can be
specified. If the partition is load balanced there will be router partition
that routes calls to any of the services in that partition.
Now let us look at a special kind of partition (load balanced partition
that has an Env visible SO and a user visible DbSession). This is one of
the design patterns to acccess the database efficiently. Each of these
partitions are single threaded because DbSession is inherently single
threaded. This partition is single threaded because Dbsession is single
threaded and not because the partition is replicated.
Another case is when you make a partition load balanced and it has only
SO(s) made out of tool classes and does not have Dbsessions then each of
these partitions can run multi-threaded beacuse there are no
single-threaded objects to make the partition single threaded
2. User Visibility
Case A - If you have only User visible SO(s) in a partition then each
behaves like a global named object. Whoever accesses it will get a copy of
their own.
Case B - If you have a user visible SO and an Env Visible SO in the same
partition then the user visible SO will be private to the partition and
cannot be accessed from outside that partition.
3. Running Man
When you run an application by clicking on the running man Forte uses its
default partitioning scheme and runs the application. The partition scheme
that you made will be used only when you run the application distributed or
from the partition workshop. This is the time you might encounter errors if
your partitioning is not right.
Hope this helps.
Nirmal

Don,
You are right. I should have said - Forte uses its own partitioning scheme
not the default scheme you see when you open partition workshop.
Nirmal
From: Don Nelson <[email protected]>
To: Nirmal P Uppalapati <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Load Balancing, User Visible Service objects, Running man
Date: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 10:45 PM
Nirmal,
One note on the "running man"...
At 08:12 PM 10/22/97 -0500, Nirmal P Uppalapati wrote:
3. Running Man
When you run an application by clicking on the running man Forte uses
its
default partitioning scheme and runs the application. The partitionscheme
that you made will be used only when you run the application distributedor
from the partition workshop. This is the time you might encounter errorsif
your partitioning is not right.
Actually, clicking on the "running man" from the repository or project
workshop will cause the application to be run VERY differently thanrunning
it distributed.
It's not technically correct to say that the default partitioning schemeis
used with the running man.
Forte consulting offers a deployment workshop that covers the finerpoints
of this and other distributed issues.
Don
============================================
Don Nelson
Regional Consulting Manager - Rocky Mountain Region
Forte Software, Inc.
Denver, CO
Corporate voice mail: 510-986-3810
aka: [email protected]
============================================
"If you ask me, though, any game without push-ups, hits, burns or noogies
is a sissy game." - Calvin

Question about load balancing between Portal and ABAP

Hi,
I have the problem whit load balancing between Portal and ECC (ERC) ABAP
Exist two system:
1) ECC (ERP) ABAP = Backend Module = HR
2) EP (JAVA) = Frontend
The users (9000 users) logon in the EP and run query (data personal) in the ECC. The problem to all user connect in Central Instance and not in the Dialog Instance.
How can balancing the conecction HTTP (EP) to ECC (ABAP)??
I need balancing in the ECC to Dialog Instance

Jco -> right. Another possibility is that you use iviews that point to the backend in this case you will need to use a load balanced entry for the backend system in the [system landscape|http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw70ehp1/helpdata/en/47/8c1e438d7017fce10000000a42189c/frameset.htm] -> SAP_R3_LoadBalancing
If you have ESS deployed on your portal, you will most probably need to do both.
Cheers Michael

Distributed Queue - Unable To Load Balance Between Each Time A Send Method Is Called

Hi,
          According to the JMS documentation, I should be able to get the
          distributed queue to load balance
          between each time the message producer calls Message.send(). I was not
          able to achieve this, however,
          I noticed the load balancing happens when a JMS client is stopped and
          restarted (meaning totally
          exit the JVM and restart the JVM).
          Here is my configuration:
          WLS 8.1 SP2 on XP
          One cluster with two nodes (running on the same machine w/ different port)
          Each node hosts one JMS server, which hosts one physical queue and using
          JDBC store
          One distributed queue with two physical members from each of the JMS
          server.
          JMS Connection Factory is configured with "Load Balancing Enabled" set to
          yes,
          and "Server Affinity Enabled" to no. This connection factory is target to
          the cluster.
          The queue session for the queue sender is created with transaction setting
          to false.
          Any hints and ideas would greatly appreciated.
          Here is the content of config.xml:
          ========================================================================
          <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
          <Domain ConfigurationVersion="8.1.0.0" Name="odh">
          <Cluster ClusterAddress="localhost:8001,localhost:9001"
          MulticastAddress="237.0.0.1" Name="odhCluster_1"/>
          <Server ListenAddress="" ListenPort="7001" Machine="localhost"
          Name="odhAdmin" NativeIOEnabled="true" ServerVersion="8.1.2.0">
          <SSL Enabled="false" HostnameVerificationIgnored="false"
          IdentityAndTrustLocations="KeyStores" Name="odhAdmin"/>
          </Server>
          <Server Cluster="odhCluster_1" ExpectedToRun="false"
          IIOPEnabled="false" ListenAddress="" ListenPort="8001"
          Machine="localhost" Name="odhManagedServer_1"
          NativeIOEnabled="true" ServerVersion="8.1.2.0">
          <SSL Enabled="false" IdentityAndTrustLocations="KeyStores"
          Name="odhManagedServer_1"/>
          <ExecuteQueue Name="weblogic.kernel.Default" ThreadCount="15"/>
          </Server>
          <Server Cluster="odhCluster_1" ExpectedToRun="false"
          IIOPEnabled="false" ListenAddress="" ListenPort="9001"
          Machine="localhost" Name="odhManagedServer_2"
          NativeIOEnabled="true" ServerVersion="8.1.2.0">
          <SSL Enabled="false" IdentityAndTrustLocations="KeyStores"
          Name="odhManagedServer_2"/>
          <ExecuteQueue Name="weblogic.kernel.Default" ThreadCount="15"/>
          </Server>
          <MigratableTarget Cluster="odhCluster_1"
          Name="odhManagedServer_1 (migratable)"
          Notes="This is a system generated default migratable target for a
          server. Do not delete manually."
          UserPreferredServer="odhManagedServer_1"/>
          <MigratableTarget Cluster="odhCluster_1"
          Name="odhManagedServer_2 (migratable)"
          Notes="This is a system generated default migratable target for a
          server. Do not delete manually."
          UserPreferredServer="odhManagedServer_2"/>
          <Machine Name="localhost">
          <NodeManager ListenAddress="localhost" Name="localhost"/>
          </Machine>
          <JMSConnectionFactory AcknowledgePolicy="All"
          DefaultDeliveryMode="Persistent"
          JNDIName="com.neoforma.ConnectionFactory"
          Name="odhConnectionFactory" ServerAffinityEnabled="false"
          Targets="odhCluster_1" XAConnectionFactoryEnabled="true"/>
          <JMSDistributedQueue JNDIName="com.neoforma.odhDistributedQueue_1"
          LoadBalancingPolicy="Round-Robin" Name="odhDistributedQueue_1"
          Targets="odhCluster_1">
          <JMSDistributedQueueMember JMSQueue="odhQueue_1"
          Name="DistributedQueueMember_1"/>
          <JMSDistributedQueueMember JMSQueue="odhQueue_2"
          Name="DistributedQueueMember_2"/>
          </JMSDistributedQueue>
          <JMSJDBCStore ConnectionPool="odhMessagePool"
          Name="odhJMSJDBCStore_1" PrefixName="Order1_"/>
          <JMSJDBCStore ConnectionPool="odhMessagePool"
          Name="odhJMSJDBCStore_2" PrefixName="Order2_"/>
          <JMSServer Name="odhJMSServer_1" Store="odhJMSJDBCStore_1"
          Targets="odhManagedServer_1">
          <JMSQueue CreationTime="1076439896999"
          JNDIName="com.neoforma.odhQueue_1" Name="odhQueue_1"
          StoreEnabled="true"/>
          </JMSServer>
          <JMSServer Name="odhJMSServer_2" Store="odhJMSJDBCStore_2"
          Targets="odhManagedServer_2">
          <JMSQueue CreationTime="1076439664343"
          JNDIName="com.neoforma.odhQueue_2" Name="odhQueue_2"
          StoreEnabled="true"/>
          </JMSServer>
          <JDBCConnectionPool
          DriverName="oracle.jdbc.xa.client.OracleXADataSource"
          Name="odhConnectionPool" Password="...."
          Properties="user=..." Targets="odhCluster_1"
          TestTableName="SQL SELECT 1 FROM DUAL" URL="................."/>
          <JDBCConnectionPool DriverName="oracle.jdbc.driver.OracleDriver"
          Name="odhMessagePool" Password="....."
          Properties="user=....." Targets="odhCluster_1"
          TestTableName="SQL SELECT 1 FROM DUAL" URL="............."/>
          <JDBCMultiPool AlgorithmType="High-Availability"
          Name="odhJDBCMultiPool_1"
          PoolList="odhConnectionPool,odhMessagePool"
          Targets="odhCluster_1"/>
          <JDBCTxDataSource EnableTwoPhaseCommit="false"
          JNDIName="com.neoforma.order.orderDS" Name="odhJDBCDataSource_1"
          PoolName="odhConnectionPool" Targets="odhCluster_1"/>
          <Security Name="odh" PasswordPolicy="wl_default_password_policy"
          Realm="wl_default_realm" RealmSetup="true"/>
          
          <Realm FileRealm="wl_default_file_realm" Name="wl_default_realm"/>
          <FileRealm Name="wl_default_file_realm"/>
          <PasswordPolicy Name="wl_default_password_policy"/>
          <Application Deployed="true" Name="odh.ear"
          Path="D:\bea\user_projects\domains\odh\applications\odh.ear"
          StagedTargets="odhManagedServer_1,odhManagedServer_2"
          StagingMode="stage" TwoPhase="true">
          <EJBComponent Name="odh.jar" Targets="odhCluster_1" URI="odh.jar"/>
          </Application>
          <StartupClass ClassName="com.neoforma.startup.JMXMBeanStartup"
          DeploymentOrder="1" Name="ODH MBean Startup Class"
          Notes="ODH MBean Startup Class - Note" Targets="odhAdmin"/>
          <EmbeddedLDAP
          Credential="{3DES}YFY55/dsdxI9HL/AKGRXHuR1VwyJewNFdAHdrtk/WMM="
          Name="odh"/>
          <SecurityConfiguration
          Credential="{3DES}ZCPa1Bsrj3z2DhVKVUbq32zTYipDVff+LDB9+1b2Dr4VLhz5yjZyHgPheqS/kum4VVZamDYN07Hyb6rALiCTHhwt1EzK5+M+"
          Name="odh" RealmBootStrapVersion="1"/>
          </Domain>


Thanks for the Makiey. I am surprise that BEA hasn't come back with any
          info.
          Hien
          On 7 Jul 2004 01:51:01 -0700, makiey <[email protected]> wrote:
          >
          > Hi Hien Luu,
          >
          > We also have a problem with load balancing, tested with WLS 7.0 SP4 and
          > WLS 8.1
          > SP2 (HP UX). The only "working" configuration is load-balancing policy =
          > random
          > (CF deployed to cluster, load balancing enabled, affinity disabled).
          > With the
          > "round-robin" policy we cannot utilize more than 50% dis. queue's
          > members.
          >
          > I'm trying to prepare a reproducer...
          >
          > greetings,
          > makiey
          >
          >
          > "Hien Luu" <[email protected]> wrote:
          >> Hi,
          >>
          >> According to the JMS documentation, I should be able to get the =
          >>
          >> distributed queue to load balance
          >> between each time the message producer calls Message.send(). I was not
          >> =
          >> =
          >>
          >> able to achieve this, however,
          >> I noticed the load balancing happens when a JMS client is stopped and
          >> =
          >>
          >> restarted (meaning totally
          >> exit the JVM and restart the JVM).
          >>
          >> Here is my configuration:
          >>
          >> WLS 8.1 SP2 on XP
          >> One cluster with two nodes (running on the same machine w/ different
          >> por=
          >> t)
          >> Each node hosts one JMS server, which hosts one physical queue and
          >> using=
          >> =
          >>
          >> JDBC store
          >> One distributed queue with two physical members from each of the JMS
          >> =
          >>
          >> server.
          >> JMS Connection Factory is configured with "Load Balancing Enabled" set
          >> t=
          >> o =
          >>
          >> yes,
          >> and "Server Affinity Enabled" to no. This connection factory is target
          >> =
          >> to =
          >>
          >> the cluster.
          >>
          >> The queue session for the queue sender is created with transaction
          >> setti=
          >> ng =
          >>
          >> to false.
          >>
          >> Any hints and ideas would greatly appreciated.
          >>
          >>
          >> Here is the content of config.xml:
          >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
          >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
          >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
          >>
          >> <?xml version=3D"1.0" encoding=3D"UTF-8"?>
          >> <Domain ConfigurationVersion=3D"8.1.0.0" Name=3D"odh">
          >> <Cluster ClusterAddress=3D"localhost:8001,localhost:9001"
          >> MulticastAddress=3D"237.0.0.1" Name=3D"odhCluster_1"/>
          >> <Server ListenAddress=3D"" ListenPort=3D"7001" Machine=3D"localhost=
          >> "
          >> Name=3D"odhAdmin" NativeIOEnabled=3D"true" ServerVersion=3D"8.1=
          >> .2.0">
          >> <SSL Enabled=3D"false" HostnameVerificationIgnored=3D"false"
          >> IdentityAndTrustLocations=3D"KeyStores" Name=3D"odhAdmin"/>=
          >>
          >> </Server>
          >> <Server Cluster=3D"odhCluster_1" ExpectedToRun=3D"false"
          >> IIOPEnabled=3D"false" ListenAddress=3D"" ListenPort=3D"8001"
          >> Machine=3D"localhost" Name=3D"odhManagedServer_1"
          >> NativeIOEnabled=3D"true" ServerVersion=3D"8.1.2.0">
          >> <SSL Enabled=3D"false" IdentityAndTrustLocations=3D"KeyStores"
          >> =
          >> =
          >>
          >> Name=3D"odhManagedServer_1"/>
          >> <ExecuteQueue Name=3D"weblogic.kernel.Default" ThreadCount=3D"1=
          >> 5"/>
          >> </Server>
          >> <Server Cluster=3D"odhCluster_1" ExpectedToRun=3D"false"
          >> IIOPEnabled=3D"false" ListenAddress=3D"" ListenPort=3D"9001"
          >> Machine=3D"localhost" Name=3D"odhManagedServer_2"
          >> NativeIOEnabled=3D"true" ServerVersion=3D"8.1.2.0">
          >> <SSL Enabled=3D"false" IdentityAndTrustLocations=3D"KeyStores"
          >> =
          >> =
          >>
          >> Name=3D"odhManagedServer_2"/>
          >> <ExecuteQueue Name=3D"weblogic.kernel.Default" ThreadCount=3D"1=
          >> 5"/>
          >> </Server>
          >> <MigratableTarget Cluster=3D"odhCluster_1"
          >> Name=3D"odhManagedServer_1 (migratable)"
          >> Notes=3D"This is a system generated default migratable target
          >> f=
          >> or a =
          >>
          >> server. Do not delete manually."
          >> UserPreferredServer=3D"odhManagedServer_1"/>
          >> <MigratableTarget Cluster=3D"odhCluster_1"
          >> Name=3D"odhManagedServer_2 (migratable)"
          >> Notes=3D"This is a system generated default migratable target
          >> f=
          >> or a =
          >>
          >> server. Do not delete manually."
          >> UserPreferredServer=3D"odhManagedServer_2"/>
          >> <Machine Name=3D"localhost">
          >> <NodeManager ListenAddress=3D"localhost" Name=3D"localhost"/>
          >> </Machine>
          >> <JMSConnectionFactory AcknowledgePolicy=3D"All"
          >> DefaultDeliveryMode=3D"Persistent"
          >> JNDIName=3D"com.neoforma.ConnectionFactory"
          >> Name=3D"odhConnectionFactory" ServerAffinityEnabled=3D"false"
          >> Targets=3D"odhCluster_1" XAConnectionFactoryEnabled=3D"true"/>
          >> <JMSDistributedQueue JNDIName=3D"com.neoforma.odhDistributedQueue_1=
          >> "
          >> LoadBalancingPolicy=3D"Round-Robin" Name=3D"odhDistributedQueue=
          >> _1" =
          >>
          >> Targets=3D"odhCluster_1">
          >> <JMSDistributedQueueMember JMSQueue=3D"odhQueue_1" =
          >>
          >> Name=3D"DistributedQueueMember_1"/>
          >> <JMSDistributedQueueMember JMSQueue=3D"odhQueue_2" =
          >>
          >> Name=3D"DistributedQueueMember_2"/>
          >> </JMSDistributedQueue>
          >> <JMSJDBCStore ConnectionPool=3D"odhMessagePool"
          >> Name=3D"odhJMSJDBCStore_1" PrefixName=3D"Order1_"/>
          >> <JMSJDBCStore ConnectionPool=3D"odhMessagePool"
          >> Name=3D"odhJMSJDBCStore_2" PrefixName=3D"Order2_"/>
          >> <JMSServer Name=3D"odhJMSServer_1" Store=3D"odhJMSJDBCStore_1"
          >> =
          >>
          >> Targets=3D"odhManagedServer_1">
          >> <JMSQueue CreationTime=3D"1076439896999"
          >> JNDIName=3D"com.neoforma.odhQueue_1" Name=3D"odhQueue_1"
          >> =
          >>
          >> StoreEnabled=3D"true"/>
          >> </JMSServer>
          >> <JMSServer Name=3D"odhJMSServer_2" Store=3D"odhJMSJDBCStore_2"
          >> =
          >>
          >> Targets=3D"odhManagedServer_2">
          >> <JMSQueue CreationTime=3D"1076439664343"
          >> JNDIName=3D"com.neoforma.odhQueue_2" Name=3D"odhQueue_2"
          >> =
          >>
          >> StoreEnabled=3D"true"/>
          >> </JMSServer>
          >> <JDBCConnectionPool
          >> DriverName=3D"oracle.jdbc.xa.client.OracleXADataSource"
          >> Name=3D"odhConnectionPool" Password=3D"...."
          >> Properties=3D"user=3D..." Targets=3D"odhCluster_1"
          >> TestTableName=3D"SQL SELECT 1 FROM DUAL" URL=3D"...............=
          >> .."/>
          >> <JDBCConnectionPool DriverName=3D"oracle.jdbc.driver.OracleDriver"
          >> Name=3D"odhMessagePool" Password=3D"....."
          >> Properties=3D"user=3D....." Targets=3D"odhCluster_1"
          >> TestTableName=3D"SQL SELECT 1 FROM DUAL" URL=3D"............."/=
          >>>
          >> <JDBCMultiPool AlgorithmType=3D"High-Availability"
          >> Name=3D"odhJDBCMultiPool_1"
          >> PoolList=3D"odhConnectionPool,odhMessagePool" =
          >>
          >> Targets=3D"odhCluster_1"/>
          >> <JDBCTxDataSource EnableTwoPhaseCommit=3D"false"
          >> JNDIName=3D"com.neoforma.order.orderDS" Name=3D"odhJDBCDataSour=
          >> ce_1"
          >> PoolName=3D"odhConnectionPool" Targets=3D"odhCluster_1"/>
          >> <Security Name=3D"odh" PasswordPolicy=3D"wl_default_password_policy=
          >> "
          >> Realm=3D"wl_default_realm" RealmSetup=3D"true"/>
          >> 
          >> <Realm FileRealm=3D"wl_default_file_realm" Name=3D"wl_default_realm=
          >> "/>
          >> <FileRealm Name=3D"wl_default_file_realm"/>
          >> <PasswordPolicy Name=3D"wl_default_password_policy"/>
          >> <Application Deployed=3D"true" Name=3D"odh.ear"
          >> Path=3D"D:\bea\user_projects\domains\odh\applications\odh.ear"
          >> StagedTargets=3D"odhManagedServer_1,odhManagedServer_2"
          >> StagingMode=3D"stage" TwoPhase=3D"true">
          >> <EJBComponent Name=3D"odh.jar" Targets=3D"odhCluster_1" URI=3D"=
          >> odh.jar"/>
          >> </Application>
          >> <StartupClass ClassName=3D"com.neoforma.startup.JMXMBeanStartup"
          >> DeploymentOrder=3D"1" Name=3D"ODH MBean Startup Class"
          >> Notes=3D"ODH MBean Startup Class - Note" Targets=3D"odhAdmin"/>=
          >>
          >> <EmbeddedLDAP
          >> Credential=3D"{3DES}YFY55/dsdxI9HL/AKGRXHuR1VwyJewNFdAHdrtk/WMM=
          >> =3D" =
          >>
          >> Name=3D"odh"/>
          >> <SecurityConfiguration
          >> Credential=3D"{3DES}ZCPa1Bsrj3z2DhVKVUbq32zTYipDVff+LDB9+1b2Dr4=
          >> VLhz5yjZyHgPheqS/kum4VVZamDYN07Hyb6rALiCTHhwt1EzK5+M+"
          >> Name=3D"odh" RealmBootStrapVersion=3D"1"/>
          >> </Domain>
          >
          Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Load balancing between two interfaces on 2811

Hi,
We have a 2811 router with VPN and NAT configured. We have two internet connection from different ISPs. The speed of our original connection is 2MB up and down. The speed of our new connection is 1MB up and down. We want to configure load balancing between the two connections. Our new ISP has provided us with a CISCO 837 router. We want to connect that router into our 2811 on one of the free WIC card and then configure load balancing between the two interfaces on our 2811. The third interface has a local address configured. Please suggest where to start. I tried searching on net for any configuration example but I was unable to find any particular example with commands. I am new on CISCO platform. Any help will be hugely appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Raju,
you have two choices as far as I can see. If you want to use static routing over the WAN to your branch, you could duplicate your static routes to the branch and point them to the secondary router. You will have two identical sets of static routes in the primary router, one set pointing to the WAN interface and the other one pointing to the secondary router.
ip route x.x.x.x "WAN-interface"
ip route x.x.x.x "secondary router"
ip route y.y.y.y "WAN-interface"
ip route y.y.y.y "secondary router"
etc.
As a result the primary router will have two routes to the branch and will load-balance. If one next-hop fails (either the WAN interface or the secondary router), only the other will be used. If the next-hop comes back up, load-balancing will resume.
The other choice would be to use EIGRP over the WAN, and make sure the two routers become EIGRP neighbors. Then you can use the "variance" command to achieve unequal cost load-balancing between the two routers. Let me know if you need more information about this, but i think static routes will be sufficient in your situation.
HTH, Thomas

Load sharing/balancing between 2 Service Providers

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for