topic Re: ip_strong_es_model versus APA in Operating System - HP-UX

ip_strong_es_model versus APA

Wes Kaufmann — Mon, 14 May 2007 09:58:07 GMT

I'm looking at using ip_strong_es_model since we don't have APA. We have a couple of web servers that we need to connect to two F5 load balancers.

Does anyone have feeback or results of using APA or ip_strong_es_model with load balancers?

w

Re: ip_strong_es_model versus APA

Steven E. Protter — Mon, 14 May 2007 10:30:23 GMT

Shalom,

For best results the F5 load balancing appliance would probably be best. Its designed for the job.

Assuming the APA NIC's are the same speed and the switch is configured properly, APA does a good enough job in my opinion.

SEP

Re: ip_strong_es_model versus APA

John Payne_2 — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:12:29 GMT

I'm not sure what the intended result is here. Are you trying to send 2 different web traffic sources to the same machine?

ip_strong_es_model is for when you have 2 NICs, and you want to use 2 different gateways. ip_strong_es_model makes it so that the NIC you came in on is the NIC you came out on. Each NIC has it's own IP. If If you lose one of the balancers or one of your NICs, that side of things is down.

APA will make a big fat pipe out of 2 little pipes. The Big Fat Pipe has one address. If you are trying to get bandwidth to the web servers, the big fat pipe will still be there if one of the load balancers go down.

We are load balancing all over the place, but tie the destination to a specific IP.

Hope it helps
John

Re: ip_strong_es_model versus APA

Wes Kaufmann — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:24:29 GMT

Hi John, Thanks for the feedback. I'm trying to use the F5's for failover and load balancing. We have two weblogic web servers serving the same domain. Should one web server fail or should one F5 fail we would want all the traffic going to the other web server. During normal operations we would want traffic load balanced to each web server.

Re: ip_strong_es_model versus APA

Zinky — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:33:44 GMT

Wes,

No comment on up_strong_es (what is it?).

We however use APA (LAN Standby mode) with several F5 balancers. We've never had any issues with it. "been running this config for 4 years now...

We have GigE pairs for APA btw.

Re: ip_strong_es_model versus APA

rick jones — Tue, 15 May 2007 13:09:09 GMT

ip_strong_es_model is used when you want to configure multiple, physical NICs in the same IP subnet, and/or want the functional equivalent of per-source IP routes. any fail-over or load balancing is accomplished via other means - scripting, DNS hacks etc.

APA is all about aggreagation, load balancing and failover.

If you want link-failover, unless you are willing/able to script things yourself, you should go ahead and obtain APA.

Re: ip_strong_es_model versus APA

Tim Nelson — Tue, 15 May 2007 14:52:35 GMT

I have used APA for many years to provide highly available LAN .

APA is a behind the scenes aggregate of 2 or more physical NICs referenced with 1 IP address working in conjuction with the network switch.

I guess it is a preference. Network issues do exist with multi routed multi homed host.

I prefer APA.

Re: ip_strong_es_model versus APA

Wes Kaufmann — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:20:56 GMT

APA is the way to go