To Load Balance or not to Load Balance

[Ian Addis]

I have a .NET app and two web servers. One was designated as a
redundant server, to be brought into service (manually) if the primary
server failed. However this seems a bit of a waste when I have
Windows 2003 and hence I have Network Load Balancing at my disposal.

Each server has two gigabit network cards. The cards are teamed for
load balancing and redundancy. If I set up NLB, apparently I need to
reserve 1 card for NLB and one for host-to-host communication. This
means that I lose the load balancing and redundancy features of having
the cards teamed.

For reference, both servers will be connecting to a single MS SQL
Server (log shipped to another server for manual redundancy) running
SQL 2000 and Win 2003.

Should I set up NLB and disable the NIC teaming? Will setting up NLB
as a multicast cluster remove the need for a dedicated host-to-host
NIC?

Answers greatly appreciated!

Regards,

Ian A.

 

[Brian Oakes [MSFT]]

ok, a few things...

When using NLB you DO NOT need a dedicated physical nic for a heartbeat
packet. I capp'd it so others will see this, as this is a VERY common
question.

That being said you can use NLB with your teamed nics outside the normal
config problems you might have with teamed nics it will work just fine.

NLB creates a "Virtual" nic (it's actually a fake adapter in the system) so
your nic then listens for both mac addresses real and fake. The NLB
terminology kinda stinks at times, so that is probably the most confusing
part.

Check out this article as a start.

303608 HOW TO: Configure Network Load Balancing Parameters in Windows 2000
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=303608

--

Brian Oakes

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties and confers no rights.
Please reply to the newsgroup so that others may benefit.