Looking for suggestions on Network Load Balancing

I have two Windows 2003 DCs. Both servers host IIS web applications and
SqlServer 2005 instances.
Both have two nics: One public and one private communication between
servers. The public nics are connected to a layer-3 switch.

I want to load balance HTTP traffic (ports 80 and 443) and I'm very
confused with Layer 3 switches, NLB & Domain controllers, Unicast vs.
Multicast, and other recomendations given by microsoft and newsgroups.

So: In my current configuration, Which NLB mode do you suggest to use?

Thanks in advance.
Gaspar

Gaspar
> I have two Windows 2003 DCs. Both servers host IIS web applications and
> SqlServer 2005 instances.
> Both have two nics: One public and one private communication between
> servers. The public nics are connected to a layer-3 switch.
>
> I want to load balance HTTP traffic (ports 80 and 443) and I'm very
> confused with Layer 3 switches, NLB & Domain controllers, Unicast vs.
> Multicast, and other recomendations given by microsoft and newsgroups.
>
> So: In my current configuration, Which NLB mode do you suggest to use?
>
> Thanks in advance.
> Gaspar
Use NLB multicast mode (without IGMP). The only thing you should do -
configure static ARP record on your switch (Virtual IP <-> Virtual MAC).
In this configuration you have no need for private connection between nodes.

Moreover with port rules of NLB cluster you can make it to balance only
TCP traffic on 80 and 443 ports.

--
With best regards
Nickolay Domukhovsky, MCSA

Nick Domukhovsky wrote:
> Gaspar
>> I have two Windows 2003 DCs. Both servers host IIS web applications and
>> SqlServer 2005 instances.
>> Both have two nics: One public and one private communication between
>> servers. The public nics are connected to a layer-3 switch.
>>
>> I want to load balance HTTP traffic (ports 80 and 443) and I'm very
>> confused with Layer 3 switches, NLB & Domain controllers, Unicast vs.
>> Multicast, and other recomendations given by microsoft and newsgroups.
>>
>> So: In my current configuration, Which NLB mode do you suggest to use?
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>> Gaspar
> Use NLB multicast mode (without IGMP). The only thing you should do -
> configure static ARP record on your switch (Virtual IP <-> Virtual MAC).
> In this configuration you have no need for private connection between nodes.
>
> Moreover with port rules of NLB cluster you can make it to balance only
> TCP traffic on 80 and 443 ports.
>
Should I configure the ARP record only in the switch that the servers
are connected? or in every switch in my network?
Thanks again.

> Nick Domukhovsky wrote:
>> Gaspar
>>> I have two Windows 2003 DCs. Both servers host IIS web applications and
>>> SqlServer 2005 instances.
>>> Both have two nics: One public and one private communication between
>>> servers. The public nics are connected to a layer-3 switch.
>>>
>>> I want to load balance HTTP traffic (ports 80 and 443) and I'm very
>>> confused with Layer 3 switches, NLB & Domain controllers, Unicast vs.
>>> Multicast, and other recomendations given by microsoft and newsgroups.
>>>
>>> So: In my current configuration, Which NLB mode do you suggest to use?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>> Gaspar
>> Use NLB multicast mode (without IGMP). The only thing you should do -
>> configure static ARP record on your switch (Virtual IP <-> Virtual MAC).
>> In this configuration you have no need for private connection between
>> nodes.
>>
>> Moreover with port rules of NLB cluster you can make it to balance only
>> TCP traffic on 80 and 443 ports.
>>
> Should I configure the ARP record only in the switch that the servers
> are connected? or in every switch in my network?
> Thanks again.
Only on switch to which your cluster nodes connected.



--
With best regards
Nickolay Domukhovsky, MCSA

Nick Domukhovsky wrote:
>> Nick Domukhovsky wrote:
>>> Gaspar
>>>> I have two Windows 2003 DCs. Both servers host IIS web applications and
>>>> SqlServer 2005 instances.
>>>> Both have two nics: One public and one private communication between
>>>> servers. The public nics are connected to a layer-3 switch.
>>>>
>>>> I want to load balance HTTP traffic (ports 80 and 443) and I'm very
>>>> confused with Layer 3 switches, NLB & Domain controllers, Unicast vs.
>>>> Multicast, and other recomendations given by microsoft and newsgroups.
>>>>
>>>> So: In my current configuration, Which NLB mode do you suggest to use?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>> Gaspar
>>> Use NLB multicast mode (without IGMP). The only thing you should do -
>>> configure static ARP record on your switch (Virtual IP <-> Virtual MAC).
>>> In this configuration you have no need for private connection between
>>> nodes.
>>>
>>> Moreover with port rules of NLB cluster you can make it to balance only
>>> TCP traffic on 80 and 443 ports.
>>>
>> Should I configure the ARP record only in the switch that the servers
>> are connected? or in every switch in my network?
>> Thanks again.
> Only on switch to which your cluster nodes connected.
>
>
>
BIG PROBLEM: my switch can't be configured. I have the 3COM Baseline
switch 2024 that has a fixed configuration. Any alternatives?

> Nick Domukhovsky wrote:
>>> Nick Domukhovsky wrote:
>>>> Gaspar
>>>>> I have two Windows 2003 DCs. Both servers host IIS web applications
>>>>> and
>>>>> SqlServer 2005 instances.
>>>>> Both have two nics: One public and one private communication between
>>>>> servers. The public nics are connected to a layer-3 switch.
>>>>>
>>>>> I want to load balance HTTP traffic (ports 80 and 443) and I'm very
>>>>> confused with Layer 3 switches, NLB & Domain controllers, Unicast vs.
>>>>> Multicast, and other recomendations given by microsoft and newsgroups.
>>>>>
>>>>> So: In my current configuration, Which NLB mode do you suggest to use?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>> Gaspar
>>>> Use NLB multicast mode (without IGMP). The only thing you should do -
>>>> configure static ARP record on your switch (Virtual IP <-> Virtual
>>>> MAC).
>>>> In this configuration you have no need for private connection between
>>>> nodes.
>>>>
>>>> Moreover with port rules of NLB cluster you can make it to balance only
>>>> TCP traffic on 80 and 443 ports.
>>>>
>>> Should I configure the ARP record only in the switch that the servers
>>> are connected? or in every switch in my network?
>>> Thanks again.
>> Only on switch to which your cluster nodes connected.
>>
>>
>>
> BIG PROBLEM: my switch can't be configured. I have the 3COM Baseline
> switch 2024 that has a fixed configuration. Any alternatives?
But you said before, that you have layer 3 switch... How it can be
unconfigurable? If it is not layer 3 switch, you can omit step with
making static ARP entry.





--
With best regards
Nickolay Domukhovsky, MCSA

Nick Domukhovsky wrote:
>> Nick Domukhovsky wrote:
>>>> Nick Domukhovsky wrote:
>>>>> Gaspar
>>>>>> I have two Windows 2003 DCs. Both servers host IIS web applications
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> SqlServer 2005 instances.
>>>>>> Both have two nics: One public and one private communication between
>>>>>> servers. The public nics are connected to a layer-3 switch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I want to load balance HTTP traffic (ports 80 and 443) and I'm very
>>>>>> confused with Layer 3 switches, NLB & Domain controllers, Unicast vs.
>>>>>> Multicast, and other recomendations given by microsoft and newsgroups.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So: In my current configuration, Which NLB mode do you suggest to use?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>>> Gaspar
>>>>> Use NLB multicast mode (without IGMP). The only thing you should do -
>>>>> configure static ARP record on your switch (Virtual IP <-> Virtual
>>>>> MAC).
>>>>> In this configuration you have no need for private connection between
>>>>> nodes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moreover with port rules of NLB cluster you can make it to balance only
>>>>> TCP traffic on 80 and 443 ports.
>>>>>
>>>> Should I configure the ARP record only in the switch that the servers
>>>> are connected? or in every switch in my network?
>>>> Thanks again.
>>> Only on switch to which your cluster nodes connected.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> BIG PROBLEM: my switch can't be configured. I have the 3COM Baseline
>> switch 2024 that has a fixed configuration. Any alternatives?
> But you said before, that you have layer 3 switch... How it can be
> unconfigurable? If it is not layer 3 switch, you can omit step with
> making static ARP entry.
>
>
>
>
>
You are right. It's Layer2 (I read the specification). Network is not my
area really.
So, being Layer2: I should still use NLB multicast mode (without IGMP)?
Thanks for your time.

> So, being Layer2: I should still use NLB multicast mode (without IGMP)?
> Thanks for your time.

Really, you should check how this model of switch handles multicast
frames (all should be right, but "doveriay, no proveriay" - trust, but
verify.


--
With best regards
Nickolay Domukhovsky, MCSA

Nick Domukhovsky wrote:
>> So, being Layer2: I should still use NLB multicast mode (without IGMP)?
>> Thanks for your time.
>
> Really, you should check how this model of switch handles multicast
> frames (all should be right, but "doveriay, no proveriay" - trust, but
> verify.
>
>
Thanks again for your time!
Gaspar