- Community Home
- >
- Networking
- >
- Legacy
- >
- Switches, Hubs, Modems
- >
- Switch Assisted Load Balancing Revisited
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО07-22-2004 03:03 AM
тАО07-22-2004 03:03 AM
Switch Assisted Load Balancing Revisited
I want to setup load balancing for both incoming and outgoing traffic from an HP 740 server with two HP Nics connected to an HP 5308 switch.
At present it appears that only 100MB of this 200MB trunk is being used. I have tried combinations of the following:
TRUNK, FEC, LACP Static and LACP Dynamic.
The last option was a long shot because the server teaming software documentation mentioned LACP must be in static mode.
Could someone also clarify the options on HP teaming software for MAC address or IP Address load balancing. I understand MAC address balancing when a routed gateway exists between server and clients, will result in one sided load balancing. However if the teaming software is set to IP address balancing, how does the layer 2 switch handle that?
Can anyone confirm that they have an HP switch load balancing above 100MB to a server?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО08-22-2004 11:37 AM
тАО08-22-2004 11:37 AM
Re: Switch Assisted Load Balancing Revisited
Basically, the procurves do _destination_ based load balancing. This is either MAC- or IP-address based.
As long as the server has only one IP-(switch trunk) or MAC address(server trunk) this will come down to the fact that it will always choose the same physical link to go to the server, thus restricting you to 100M incoming.
I found this bit of info on the HP website;
http://www.hp.com/rnd/library/pdf/59692372.pdf
cheers,
/steven
PS: Extreme Networks can do loadbalancing on MAC/IPaddr/TCPorUDP Port for src and dst, giving you a good spread..
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО09-05-2004 02:08 AM
тАО09-05-2004 02:08 AM
Re: Switch Assisted Load Balancing Revisited
Sorry but I have to correct you on your "Basically, the procurves do _destination_ based load balancing. This is either MAC- or IP-address based.
As long as the server has only one IP-(switch trunk) or MAC address(server trunk) this will come down to the fact that it will
always choose the same physical link to go to the server, thus restricting you to 100M incoming." statement.
If you use FEC/LACP/HP Trunking all are Layer 2 based SA/DA meaning that the ProCurve Switch will Load Balance taken into consideration BOTH Source AND Destination MAC Address (Logical X-Or operation). Mind you that Trunking (unlike Meshing) is NOT dynamic. With Trunking a certain combination of SA/DA will ALWAYS take the same physical link no matter what load already on that link.
Regards, Ardon
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО09-14-2004 08:45 AM
тАО09-14-2004 08:45 AM
Re: Switch Assisted Load Balancing Revisited
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО09-14-2004 07:25 PM
тАО09-14-2004 07:25 PM
Re: Switch Assisted Load Balancing Revisited
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО09-14-2004 10:26 PM
тАО09-14-2004 10:26 PM
Re: Switch Assisted Load Balancing Revisited
Thanks for the reply.
If the switch isn't configured for trunking and you use any form of teaming on the server (my preference is SLB for throughput reasons), would that not cause a switch loop?
The way I understand teaming is that all the NICs configured in the "team" would then take on the IP adddress and MAC address of the primary NIC in the team. Am I understanding that incorrectly?
One of the main reasons we are looking at teaming is to provide a bigger "pipe" for inbound traffic to the server(s), but if teaming won't do that, then we will need to rethink how to proceed.
Any suggestions on how to accomplish this?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО09-17-2004 02:23 AM
тАО09-17-2004 02:23 AM
Re: Switch Assisted Load Balancing Revisited
Jason is right: "Inbound it doesn't seem to matter because the switches seem incapable of doing anything intelligent with that traffic"
So we purchased an HP2848 L3 switch who has 48 x 10/100/1000 ports, plus 4 nice dual personality ports. We ordered certified CAT6 patch cords to make sure we can go on 1Gbps and we'll try to put our 1Gbps servers at work.
I have one question, tho: isn't the bandwidth of the internal bus of the servers going to be the new bottleneck?