Re: nlb mode
From: Param R. (pr_at_nospam.com)
Date: 11/09/04
- Next message: Mike Rosado [MSFT]: "Re: Postscript Driver Update"
- Previous message: Ben: "Error 1067 - Cluster Service"
- In reply to: Juan: "RE: nlb mode"
- Next in thread: Juan: "Re: nlb mode"
- Reply: Juan: "Re: nlb mode"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 17:05:23 -0600
Hi Juan,
Thanks for the great information. Here is my setup:-
1. Dell 5324 Ethernet Switch (Layer 2)
2. 2 Servers - Windows Server 2003 Web Edition (NLB) - 2 NICS Teamed.
3. I have DC & DB Servers too.
3. I would need inter-host communication for the same reason as you: to move
website content updates from 1 server to another.
4. Now I could do Unicast & add a 2nd nic to each server, but I dont want
switch flooding as my network will get clogged.
Based on this what would you recommend?
thanks,
Param
"Juan" <Juan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:27A9F9FD-BD48-4A9B-B18F-2D09DDDC80B7@microsoft.com...
> Hi,
>
> In my experience I have used both unicast and multicast.
>
>
> It all depends on what your NLB hosts will be doing and if they need to
> perform inter-host communication between each other.
>
> If your nodes do not need to see each other I would leave the default mode
> unicast and deploy the NLB clusters but this mode those flood all of the
> switch ports.
>
> If the nodes in the NLB cluster need to see each then multicast would be a
> good choice.
>
> Both modes of operation have their pros and cons. The advantages of
> unicast
> mode are that it works seamlessly with all routers and layer-2 switches
> (and
> layer-3 switches which are configured to operate in layer-2 mode).
>
> The disadvantages are:
> . Unicast mode induces switch flooding, where all switch ports are flooded
> with NLB traffic, even ports to which non-NLB servers are attached;
> . Since all hosts in the cluster have the same IP Address and the same MAC
> Address, there is no inter-host communication possible between the hosts
> configured in unicast mode.
> Multicast allows inter-host communication because it adds a layer two
> multicast address to the cluster instead of changing it and this makes
> inter-host communication possible as the hosts retain their original
> unique
> MAC addresses and already have unique Dedicated IP Addresses. However, in
> multicast mode, the ARP reply sent out by a host in the cluster, in
> response
> to an ARP request, maps the clusters unicast IP Address to its multicast
> MAC
> Address. Such a mapping in an ARP reply is rejected by some routers and so
> administrator must add a static ARP entry in the router mapping the
> Cluster
> IP Address to its MAC Address
>
> Example in my experience why I chose multicast versus unicast was that all
> web content on the NLB hosts had to be identical.
>
> And updating the content was only performed on 1 of the nodes then the
> data
> from that node was replicated out to all the other nodes. This requires
> inter-host communication.
>
> Regards,
>
> Juan
>
>
>
> "Param R." wrote:
>
>> Hi all, we are in the process of setting up a new NLB environment running
>> 2003 Web. What is the recommended NLB Mode for performance and
>> manageability? Unicast or MultiCast? All servers have dual INTEL gigabit
>> nics. The switches are Dell 5324 Gigabit switches etc.
>>
>> TIA!
>>
>>
>>
- Next message: Mike Rosado [MSFT]: "Re: Postscript Driver Update"
- Previous message: Ben: "Error 1067 - Cluster Service"
- In reply to: Juan: "RE: nlb mode"
- Next in thread: Juan: "Re: nlb mode"
- Reply: Juan: "Re: nlb mode"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
