Multiple machine load balance question

I have to setup a small web farm for a project we are working on. There are
going to approximately 6 web servers, probably not more than 10. The system
needs to be setup to handle 6000 simultaneous http requests (this is a max
and I doubt they will hit it, but it is in the contract). They will most
likely be windows server 2003 running IIS 6.

I know there are hardware load balancing solutions and windows has a
software solution built in, NLBS. One person I talked to recommended
against a software solution. He said it's too much traffic on the NIC and
TCP stack. I know the hardware solutions are for many systems, but I though
since we are using <10 then the nlbs might be sufficient. The nlbs
documentation says it can handle up to 32 systems.

Can nlbs handle this kind of load?
Is there a certain version of Windows Server 2003 we would need to specify
to enable nlbs?

Thanks,
Jim

It all depends on the quality of your hardware, notably the NIC.

--
Todd J Heron, MCSE
Windows 2003/2000/NT


"Jim H" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
> I have to setup a small web farm for a project we are working on. There
are
> going to approximately 6 web servers, probably not more than 10. The
system
> needs to be setup to handle 6000 simultaneous http requests (this is a max
> and I doubt they will hit it, but it is in the contract). They will most
> likely be windows server 2003 running IIS 6.
>
> I know there are hardware load balancing solutions and windows has a
> software solution built in, NLBS. One person I talked to recommended
> against a software solution. He said it's too much traffic on the NIC and
> TCP stack. I know the hardware solutions are for many systems, but I
though
> since we are using <10 then the nlbs might be sufficient. The nlbs
> documentation says it can handle up to 32 systems.
>
> Can nlbs handle this kind of load?
> Is there a certain version of Windows Server 2003 we would need to specify
> to enable nlbs?
>
> Thanks,
> Jim
>
>

Uh, ok thanks? So was that a yes or a no?
I understand it depends on the hardware, most things do. With the
appropriate hardware, do you think NLBS can handle the load or should I be
looking at hardware load balancers? If it will is there a certain version
of Windows Server that will tork better for this scenario? I'm just trying
to get opinions from those who might know. I'm a software engineer and
don't know much about setting up high traffic networks.

Thanks again,
jim

"Todd J Heron" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> It all depends on the quality of your hardware, notably the NIC.
>
> --
> Todd J Heron, MCSE
> Windows 2003/2000/NT
>
>
> "Jim H" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I have to setup a small web farm for a project we are working on. There
> are
> > going to approximately 6 web servers, probably not more than 10. The
> system
> > needs to be setup to handle 6000 simultaneous http requests (this is a
max
> > and I doubt they will hit it, but it is in the contract). They will
most
> > likely be windows server 2003 running IIS 6.
> >
> > I know there are hardware load balancing solutions and windows has a
> > software solution built in, NLBS. One person I talked to recommended
> > against a software solution. He said it's too much traffic on the NIC
and
> > TCP stack. I know the hardware solutions are for many systems, but I
> though
> > since we are using <10 then the nlbs might be sufficient. The nlbs
> > documentation says it can handle up to 32 systems.
> >
> > Can nlbs handle this kind of load?
> > Is there a certain version of Windows Server 2003 we would need to
specify
> > to enable nlbs?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jim
> >
> >
>
>

Windows Network Load Balancing is designed to "cluster" entire Servers (with
one nic in each). It is not meant to "team" nics together. If you want to
team nics together it requires a whole system designed to work together.
Both the nics and the switches they connect to have to be designed for doing
this. If the Switches they connect to aren't designed for the purpose they
will "nullify" and nic teaming that you do. It may even be the same with
Server Clustering, but I'm not sure,...but I suspect it is so because
anytime you attempt to access more than one possible nic by the same IP# the
switch (which works by MAC addresses) will get in the way. The Switch cannot
be "fooled" the same way that Hosts on the network can be.

--

Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com

"Jim H" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:uIARg%23$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Uh, ok thanks? So was that a yes or a no?
> I understand it depends on the hardware, most things do. With the
> appropriate hardware, do you think NLBS can handle the load or should I be
> looking at hardware load balancers? If it will is there a certain version
> of Windows Server that will tork better for this scenario? I'm just
trying
> to get opinions from those who might know. I'm a software engineer and
> don't know much about setting up high traffic networks.
>
> Thanks again,
> jim
>
> "Todd J Heron" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > It all depends on the quality of your hardware, notably the NIC.
> >
> > --
> > Todd J Heron, MCSE
> > Windows 2003/2000/NT
> >
> >
> > "Jim H" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > I have to setup a small web farm for a project we are working on.
There
> > are
> > > going to approximately 6 web servers, probably not more than 10. The
> > system
> > > needs to be setup to handle 6000 simultaneous http requests (this is a
> max
> > > and I doubt they will hit it, but it is in the contract). They will
> most
> > > likely be windows server 2003 running IIS 6.
> > >
> > > I know there are hardware load balancing solutions and windows has a
> > > software solution built in, NLBS. One person I talked to recommended
> > > against a software solution. He said it's too much traffic on the NIC
> and
> > > TCP stack. I know the hardware solutions are for many systems, but I
> > though
> > > since we are using <10 then the nlbs might be sufficient. The nlbs
> > > documentation says it can handle up to 32 systems.
> > >
> > > Can nlbs handle this kind of load?
> > > Is there a certain version of Windows Server 2003 we would need to
> specify
> > > to enable nlbs?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jim
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Thanks for the response and I'm sorry if this is a dumb question, but here
goes anyway.
How does server clustering differ? Doesn't each machine still get a unique
IP? Or is NLBS and server clustering not for balancing the load of incoming
requests to the servers? I'm a bit confused. The examples I've seen on the
web (WLBS and NLBS) always use web servers for their examples. That happens
to be exactly my scenario. We are going to have a particularly busy
internal web site and need to distribute the request load.

Each machine will have only one nic, so I don't think I'm asking about what
you called nic teaming.

Should I be concentrating on a hardware solution, like Cisco or Nortel, for
this? What is NLBS actually used for?

jim

"Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Windows Network Load Balancing is designed to "cluster" entire Servers
(with
> one nic in each). It is not meant to "team" nics together. If you want to
> team nics together it requires a whole system designed to work together.
> Both the nics and the switches they connect to have to be designed for
doing
> this. If the Switches they connect to aren't designed for the purpose they
> will "nullify" and nic teaming that you do. It may even be the same with
> Server Clustering, but I'm not sure,...but I suspect it is so because
> anytime you attempt to access more than one possible nic by the same IP#
the
> switch (which works by MAC addresses) will get in the way. The Switch
cannot
> be "fooled" the same way that Hosts on the network can be.
>
> --
>
> Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> www.wandtv.com
>
> "Jim H" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:uIARg%23$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Uh, ok thanks? So was that a yes or a no?
> > I understand it depends on the hardware, most things do. With the
> > appropriate hardware, do you think NLBS can handle the load or should I
be
> > looking at hardware load balancers? If it will is there a certain
version
> > of Windows Server that will tork better for this scenario? I'm just
> trying
> > to get opinions from those who might know. I'm a software engineer and
> > don't know much about setting up high traffic networks.
> >
> > Thanks again,
> > jim
> >
> > "Todd J Heron" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > It all depends on the quality of your hardware, notably the NIC.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Todd J Heron, MCSE
> > > Windows 2003/2000/NT
> > >
> > >
> > > "Jim H" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > > I have to setup a small web farm for a project we are working on.
> There
> > > are
> > > > going to approximately 6 web servers, probably not more than 10.
The
> > > system
> > > > needs to be setup to handle 6000 simultaneous http requests (this is
a
> > max
> > > > and I doubt they will hit it, but it is in the contract). They will
> > most
> > > > likely be windows server 2003 running IIS 6.
> > > >
> > > > I know there are hardware load balancing solutions and windows has a
> > > > software solution built in, NLBS. One person I talked to
recommended
> > > > against a software solution. He said it's too much traffic on the
NIC
> > and
> > > > TCP stack. I know the hardware solutions are for many systems, but
I
> > > though
> > > > since we are using <10 then the nlbs might be sufficient. The nlbs
> > > > documentation says it can handle up to 32 systems.
> > > >
> > > > Can nlbs handle this kind of load?
> > > > Is there a certain version of Windows Server 2003 we would need to
> > specify
> > > > to enable nlbs?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Jim
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

"Jim H" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> web (WLBS and NLBS) always use web servers for their examples. That
happens
> to be exactly my scenario. We are going to have a particularly busy
> internal web site and need to distribute the request load.
>
> Each machine will have only one nic, so I don't think I'm asking about
what
> you called nic teaming.
>
> Should I be concentrating on a hardware solution, like Cisco or Nortel,
for
> this? What is NLBS actually used for?

You are clustering Servers. Each Server does have its own IP#, but the
"Cluster" also has an IP# and using that will connect you to any one of the
servers. The material you found on MS site you get you through it, but pay
careful attention to the issue with the Switches because each server will
connect to its own port on the Switch, yet the switch needs to be able to
acknowledge the "cluster's" single IP# via any of the ports that the servers
connect to,...this is contrary to what switches normally do, so you will
have to research that carefully. I have not had the opportunity to build a
cluster, so I cannot give you any specifics.

--

Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com