have you tried running the NLB cluster in multicast mode? (I don have a lot
of experience in this area but I know that this solves some issues like
switch flooding).
--
Regards,
Andrei Ungureanu
www.eventid.net
Test our new EventReader!
http://www.altairtech.ca/eventreader...lt2.asp?ref=au
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
>I have spent WAY too long trying to figure this out...
>
> I have two terminal servers configured in Unicast mode with separate
> NIC's. The cluster nics are configured to 10.25.1.35 using the NLB
> Manager. The other NIC's are on a separate subnet 10.26.1.11 and
> 10.26.1.12.
>
> Initially, everything was plugged into the same switch (Dell
> PowerConnect 5324). I know there are some MAC issues with switches, so
> I've also tried pluggin all 4 cables into a 3Com hub and uplinking it
> to one port on the Dell switch, and that makes no difference at all.
> I've even set the MaskSourceMac reg key to 1 as well.
>
> My Problems:
>
> 1. Server 1 (x.11) can access the internet and ping other servers on
> the 10.25.1.x subnet (thru the cluster NIC) and also access Server 2
> via the 10.26.1.x subnet, however when using the NLB Manager to view
> the cluster it fails to connect to (or properly resolve)
> Server2.Domain.Com.
> 2. Server 2 (x.12) can only access Server 1 via it's IP address thru
> the 10.26.1.x subnet. Trying to ping any server names on either
> network does not work.
> 3. More interesingly, if I pull or disable the cluster NIC on Server
> 1, Server 2 will then take over and I can access the internet and ping
> anything I want!
> 4. A side note, pinging other servers on the network with the "ping
> x.x.x.x -t" command is steady and normal on Server 1 however on Server
> 2 the timing fluctuates??? I've tried multiple NIC's to rule out
> hardware.
> 5. I'm guessing my problem lies with the switch being confused with
> the MAC addresses somehow. I've managed to connect to the Dell switch
> and attempted to add and static ARP entry, but I am not sure if this is
> the right thing to do. Perhaps a VLAN is the way to go...?
>
>
> Thanks!
>