Re: IIS for failover cluster in Windows 2003

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

From: Chad Crowder (chad_at_spam_me_not.chad)
Date: 06/07/04 

Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 02:00:56 -0400

WenJun,

Expense is relative in both terms of cost and process. The requirement of
maintaining state for legacy applications involves not only actual costs
such as development, but also increases the process overhead (IE, adding
another layer to handle state). When you don't actually *need* the load
balancing, how can you justify that additional cost?

Essentially, MS "recommends" is that in order to get high availability, I
HAVE to also get load balancing. That's like McDonalds forcing me to upsize
my combo (and charging me for it).

Don't get me wrong, I've got no problem with Microsoft recommending
solutions, but the fact that it's "not recommended" shouldn't be used as an
excuse for lack of functionality of alternatives - or an excuse not to
provide support for perfectly reasonable (and logical) uses. There's no
good reason - that I can see- for MS to leave out the cluster resources in
Windows 2003 that were present in Windows 2000. Who knows, maybe there is a
good reason for not having IIS instances in cluster administrator, but I do
think that a "recommendation" is not one of them.

- Chad

""WenJun Zhang[msft]"" <v-wzhang@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:YXp3O2ETEHA.328@cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl...
> Hi Chad,
>
> I fully agree with Paul's opinion. NLB is recommended for IIS
> clustering, and the cluster service (MSCS) is recommended for
> clustering backend services like SQL.
>
> NLB gives you high availability and load balancing - every box is
> autually working all the time. MSCS is a lot more expensive to be
> done correctly and only gives you high available - failover means
> downtime. There are few scenarios where IIS on an MSCS cluster makes
> sense. So it's the fact that clustering IIS isn't recommended,
> especially on Win2K3 IIS6.
>
> Best regards,
>
> WenJun Zhang
> Microsoft Online Support
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
>

Relevant Pages

  • we convince the binding yogi
    ... rib during the elaborate transport is the cluster that recommends ... Are you relevant, I mean, reassuring in front of ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: How long to break a 512 bit RSA key?
    ... > but I think that all the volunteer sievers for NFSnet have a total ... > PC $ investment higher than the cost of the big box used for the ... The LA for NFSNET is run on a cluster of 16 dual-proc 1GHz PIII ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: CFD vs wind tunnel, 2009 rules
    ... CFD is perhaps a little less cost transparent, but again, the power ... The running cost figures are a good bit off (and 64 processors isn't ... considered much of a cluster these days), ... Even for a University, licensing can ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)
  • RE: Windows 2003 SP1 and SQL 2000 SP3 - performance now cut in half!!!
    ... With any service packs, hotfixes, security patches, it is not recommended to apply it on production without testing it on a test environment. ... Open Cluster Administrator, right-click Node 1, and then click Pause Node. ... Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: Sun Cluster
    ... important and then cost is crusial and you are better off without a HA ... Todays machines are so reliable that the complexity of cluster ... In Sun Cluster cases, no. ... installation standards and proactive services. ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)