 |
|
|
|
Next: ASPmail dll hangs
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Dec 13, 2003
Posts: 2
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2003 10:36 pm
Post subject: Load balancing: stupid logic?
Archived from groups: microsoft>public>inetserver>iis (more info?)
|
|
|
Win NT 4.0
IIS 4.0
1) ASP files are deployed in a shared folder on a remote server.
2) 2 IIS servers behind a load balancer are using the same ASP source in
a so called 'load balanced' environment to deploy the application.
[There is no physical copy of the application on both these servers,
they are simply 'pointing to' the shared location on the remote server]
In my opinion, I think that this is a bad architecture but my superiors
tend to think otherwise. I think that this will amongst other things
cause slow response times and other performance issues. Needless to say
it also eliminates the benefits of having a 'load balanced' environment.
My question to the experts on this forum is:
1) Am I wrong to make the assumption that the architecture described
above is 'incorrect'?
2) Is the above a 'norm' of implementing IIS load balanced applications?
3) Wouldn't it be better to have a physical copy of the application on
each one of the load balanced servers?
4) Is there a way to 'push' modified code from one IIS server to the rest?
5) What is the 'recommended' way of doing load balancing on IIS NT 4 ?
Appreciate your comments and thanks in advance.
Buzz. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Aug 23, 2003
Posts: 180
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2003 10:36 pm
Post subject: Re: Load balancing: stupid logic? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"BuzzLightyear" <jabberwauki.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3fda9845@news.starhub.net.sg...
> Win NT 4.0
> IIS 4.0
>
> 1) ASP files are deployed in a shared folder on a remote server.
>
> 2) 2 IIS servers behind a load balancer are using the same ASP source in
> a so called 'load balanced' environment to deploy the application.
> [There is no physical copy of the application on both these servers,
> they are simply 'pointing to' the shared location on the remote server]
>
> In my opinion, I think that this is a bad architecture but my superiors
> tend to think otherwise. I think that this will amongst other things
> cause slow response times and other performance issues. Needless to say
> it also eliminates the benefits of having a 'load balanced' environment.
>
> My question to the experts on this forum is:
>
> 1) Am I wrong to make the assumption that the architecture described
> above is 'incorrect'?
Loadbalancing on NT 4 and 5 is nice for mainly SQL Server 7 (resp SQL 2000)
(that takes advantage of this)
1) Not incorrect, but expensive.
2) Partly no complete solution. You NEED a fault taulerant ASP Session
component, which allows for turning off IIS or resetting IIS while *still*
sessions keep alive.
ASPX technology for ASP.NET allows this using a SQL server. Otherwise, there
are 3th party products that are perfectly suited for this. But still,
loadbalancing for IIS is not really helpfull, except script and html
distribution & synchronisation using IISSYNC (this tool is ran by the
loadbalancing process)
> 2) Is the above a 'norm' of implementing IIS load balanced applications?
>
> 3) Wouldn't it be better to have a physical copy of the application on
> each one of the load balanced servers?
>
> 4) Is there a way to 'push' modified code from one IIS server to the rest?
>
> 5) What is the 'recommended' way of doing load balancing on IIS NT 4 ?
See above...
--
compatible web farm Session replacement for Asp and Asp.Net
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.nieropwebconsult.nl/asp_session_manager.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nieropwebconsult.nl/asp_session_manager.htm</a>
> Appreciate your comments and thanks in advance.
>
> Buzz.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 28, 2003
Posts: 617
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2003 10:36 pm
Post subject: Re: Load balancing: stupid logic? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:36:30 +0800, BuzzLightyear
<jabberwauki.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Win NT 4.0
>IIS 4.0
>
>1) ASP files are deployed in a shared folder on a remote server.
>
>2) 2 IIS servers behind a load balancer are using the same ASP source in
>a so called 'load balanced' environment to deploy the application.
>[There is no physical copy of the application on both these servers,
>they are simply 'pointing to' the shared location on the remote server]
>
>In my opinion, I think that this is a bad architecture but my superiors
>tend to think otherwise. I think that this will amongst other things
>cause slow response times and other performance issues. Needless to say
>it also eliminates the benefits of having a 'load balanced' environment.
>
>My question to the experts on this forum is:
>
>1) Am I wrong to make the assumption that the architecture described
>above is 'incorrect'?
>
>2) Is the above a 'norm' of implementing IIS load balanced applications?
>
>3) Wouldn't it be better to have a physical copy of the application on
>each one of the load balanced servers?
>
>4) Is there a way to 'push' modified code from one IIS server to the rest?
>
>5) What is the 'recommended' way of doing load balancing on IIS NT 4 ?
>
>Appreciate your comments and thanks in advance.
>
>Buzz.
Buzz,
The whole point of deploying load balancing and clustering is to
eliminate a single point of failure (as far as possible)
In your proposed architecture all your content is housed on one
machine. Lose that one machine and it doesn't matter how many
front-end web servers you have they will all be unable to serve any
content.
A really good solution is Application Centre, although you would need
to upgrade to at least W2k/IIS5 :
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.microsoft.com/applicationcenter/" target="_blank">http://www.microsoft.com/applicationcenter/</a>
There are a number of manual options available such as Robocopy
(Resource Kit tool) which will copy content and retain permissions but
Application Center is easily the best solution.
Regards,
Paul Lynch
MCSE<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Load balancing: stupid logic? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 13, 2003
Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2003 10:36 pm
Post subject: Re: Load balancing: stupid logic? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
BuzzLightyear wrote:
> 1) Am I wrong to make the assumption that the architecture described
> above is 'incorrect'?
It depends entirely on your goals, if you ask me.
For the sake of redundancy, it is not complete, but only partially
there. If you loose a Web server, you've still got another, but you
need to make the back-end systems redundant, too, which I think you
already know.
If performance is the concern, the *vast* majority of the work will be
on the front-end Web servers. It makes sense to spread out the load
there, and keep in mind that disk reads across the network aren't going
to cause any contention issues, as long as you have plenty of network
bandwidth.
Speaking of which, it should be on a switched network and you should
monitor the CPU and each port via SNMP. That'll give you the best idea
of how much data is flowing through that switch.
> 2) Is the above a 'norm' of implementing IIS load balanced applications?
I don't know if there is a "norm" with load balancing. There are lots
of ways to accomplish the same goal.
Where I work, we consult for a company which has a load balanced system,
at various levels of the application. The front-end systems sit behind
redundant load balancers. The back-end system runs SQL Server 2000,
which is connected to a Network Appliance SAN, with redundant disks,
head units, fibre switches, etc. It is a nice system, but it has cost
them a *ton* of money.
> 3) Wouldn't it be better to have a physical copy of the application on
> each one of the load balanced servers?
It is much easier to manage code in one place than in two.
> 4) Is there a way to 'push' modified code from one IIS server to the rest?
I think Microsoft's Appliance Center does this, but I know very little
about it.
> 5) What is the 'recommended' way of doing load balancing on IIS NT 4 ?
Again, I don't think there is a "norm" or "recommended" way of doing it.
--
Matt Barton
nerd RemoveThis @netmonkey.net<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Load balancing: stupid logic? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 13, 2003
Posts: 4
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:11 am
Post subject: Re: Load balancing: stupid logic? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
I've used both WLBS and NLB, you get what you pay for (they are free
products [they are not applicationn aware]..with severe design limitations).
For SQL, SQL clustering (pasive-active) and for fault tolarnce my chioce is
F5 BigIP.
For seesion state ..use Out-of process -SQL Session and for the application
challenged desiring Session state use BigIP with Affinity (with not affinity
you get load balancing)
There is no one answer ..it depends are what you desire for load balancing
and high reliability etc and how much you want to spend.
Application Center has 2 drawbacks, you can't rollback a deployment and you
cant use scheduler and schedule a Deployment.
"Matt Barton" <nerd RemoveThis @netmonkey.net> wrote in message
news:brffsi0r64@enews1.newsguy.com...
> BuzzLightyear wrote:
>
> > 1) Am I wrong to make the assumption that the architecture described
> > above is 'incorrect'?
>
> It depends entirely on your goals, if you ask me.
>
> For the sake of redundancy, it is not complete, but only partially
> there. If you loose a Web server, you've still got another, but you
> need to make the back-end systems redundant, too, which I think you
> already know.
>
> If performance is the concern, the *vast* majority of the work will be
> on the front-end Web servers. It makes sense to spread out the load
> there, and keep in mind that disk reads across the network aren't going
> to cause any contention issues, as long as you have plenty of network
> bandwidth.
>
> Speaking of which, it should be on a switched network and you should
> monitor the CPU and each port via SNMP. That'll give you the best idea
> of how much data is flowing through that switch.
>
> > 2) Is the above a 'norm' of implementing IIS load balanced applications?
>
> I don't know if there is a "norm" with load balancing. There are lots
> of ways to accomplish the same goal.
>
> Where I work, we consult for a company which has a load balanced system,
> at various levels of the application. The front-end systems sit behind
> redundant load balancers. The back-end system runs SQL Server 2000,
> which is connected to a Network Appliance SAN, with redundant disks,
> head units, fibre switches, etc. It is a nice system, but it has cost
> them a *ton* of money.
>
> > 3) Wouldn't it be better to have a physical copy of the application on
> > each one of the load balanced servers?
>
> It is much easier to manage code in one place than in two.
>
> > 4) Is there a way to 'push' modified code from one IIS server to the
rest?
>
> I think Microsoft's Appliance Center does this, but I know very little
> about it.
>
> > 5) What is the 'recommended' way of doing load balancing on IIS NT 4 ?
>
> Again, I don't think there is a "norm" or "recommended" way of doing it.
>
> --
> Matt Barton
> nerd RemoveThis @netmonkey.net<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Load balancing: stupid logic? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 13, 2003
Posts: 2
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:16 am
Post subject: Re: Load balancing: stupid logic? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Paul Lynch wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:36:30 +0800, BuzzLightyear
> <jabberwauki.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Win NT 4.0
>>IIS 4.0
>>
>>1) ASP files are deployed in a shared folder on a remote server.
>>
>>2) 2 IIS servers behind a load balancer are using the same ASP source in
>>a so called 'load balanced' environment to deploy the application.
>>[There is no physical copy of the application on both these servers,
>>they are simply 'pointing to' the shared location on the remote server]
>>
>>In my opinion, I think that this is a bad architecture but my superiors
>>tend to think otherwise. I think that this will amongst other things
>>cause slow response times and other performance issues. Needless to say
>>it also eliminates the benefits of having a 'load balanced' environment.
>>
>>My question to the experts on this forum is:
>>
>>1) Am I wrong to make the assumption that the architecture described
>>above is 'incorrect'?
>>
>>2) Is the above a 'norm' of implementing IIS load balanced applications?
>>
>>3) Wouldn't it be better to have a physical copy of the application on
>>each one of the load balanced servers?
>>
>>4) Is there a way to 'push' modified code from one IIS server to the rest?
>>
>>5) What is the 'recommended' way of doing load balancing on IIS NT 4 ?
>>
>>Appreciate your comments and thanks in advance.
>>
>>Buzz.
>
>
> Buzz,
>
> The whole point of deploying load balancing and clustering is to
> eliminate a single point of failure (as far as possible)
>
> In your proposed architecture all your content is housed on one
> machine. Lose that one machine and it doesn't matter how many
> front-end web servers you have they will all be unable to serve any
> content.
>
> A really good solution is Application Centre, although you would need
> to upgrade to at least W2k/IIS5 :
>
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.microsoft.com/applicationcenter/</font" target="_blank">http://www.microsoft.com/applicationcenter/</font</a>>
>
> There are a number of manual options available such as Robocopy
> (Resource Kit tool) which will copy content and retain permissions but
> Application Center is easily the best solution.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Paul Lynch
> MCSE
Yes, I understand that Paul. However, do you think the architecture i
mentioned above has some performance implications also? Like reducing
the response times when users try to access the same application. Is
there something like file contention happening?
Thanks in advance,
Buzz.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Load balancing: stupid logic? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 23, 2003
Posts: 180
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:16 am
Post subject: Re: Load balancing: stupid logic? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"BuzzLightyear" <jabberwauki RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3fdabdce$1@news.starhub.net.sg...
> Paul Lynch wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:36:30 +0800, BuzzLightyear
> > <jabberwauki RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Win NT 4.0
> >>IIS 4.0
> >>
> >
> > The whole point of deploying load balancing and clustering is to
> > eliminate a single point of failure (as far as possible)
> >
> > In your proposed architecture all your content is housed on one
> > machine. Lose that one machine and it doesn't matter how many
> > front-end web servers you have they will all be unable to serve any
> > content.
> >
> > A really good solution is Application Centre, although you would need
> > to upgrade to at least W2k/IIS5 :
> >
<font color=green> > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.microsoft.com/applicationcenter/</font" target="_blank">http://www.microsoft.com/applicationcenter/</font</a>>
But application centre does not prevent an ASP application against failure!
It's really a incomplete product, if you're thinking about making IIS
failure proof. Agree, Appcenter 2000 does a lot of things for you, at
management level, but Win2000 network loadbalancing does a better job, in
combination with a Session robuste product (for ASP)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Load balancing: stupid logic? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 22, 2003
Posts: 1637
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 11:41 am
Post subject: Re: Load balancing: stupid logic? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS)" <egbert_nierop.RemoveThis@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ugFOKXYwDHA.1088@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "BuzzLightyear" <jabberwauki.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3fdabdce$1@news.starhub.net.sg...
> > Paul Lynch wrote:
> > > On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:36:30 +0800, BuzzLightyear
> > > <jabberwauki.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Win NT 4.0
> > >>IIS 4.0
> > >>
> > >
> > > The whole point of deploying load balancing and clustering is to
> > > eliminate a single point of failure (as far as possible)
> > >
> > > In your proposed architecture all your content is housed on one
> > > machine. Lose that one machine and it doesn't matter how many
> > > front-end web servers you have they will all be unable to serve any
> > > content.
> > >
> > > A really good solution is Application Centre, although you would need
> > > to upgrade to at least W2k/IIS5 :
> > >
<font color=brown> > > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.microsoft.com/applicationcenter/</font" target="_blank">http://www.microsoft.com/applicationcenter/</font</a>>
>
> But application centre does not prevent an ASP application against
failure!
> It's really a incomplete product, if you're thinking about making IIS
> failure proof. Agree, Appcenter 2000 does a lot of things for you, at
> management level, but Win2000 network loadbalancing does a better job, in
> combination with a Session robuste product (for ASP)
Application Center includes NLB.
--
Tom Kaminski IIS MVP
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.iistoolshed.com/" target="_blank">http://www.iistoolshed.com/</a> - tools, scripts, and utilities for running IIS
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/" target="_blank">http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/</a>
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/community/centers/iis/" target="_blank">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/community/centers/iis/</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Load balancing: stupid logic? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 22, 2003
Posts: 1637
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 11:42 am
Post subject: Re: Load balancing: stupid logic? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
> Yes, I understand that Paul. However, do you think the architecture i
> mentioned above has some performance implications also? Like reducing
> the response times when users try to access the same application. Is
> there something like file contention happening?
Test it - that's the only way to get the right answer for your environment.
Go ahead and put a load against it and see what happens.
--
Tom Kaminski IIS MVP
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.iistoolshed.com/" target="_blank">http://www.iistoolshed.com/</a> - tools, scripts, and utilities for running IIS
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/" target="_blank">http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/</a>
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/community/centers/iis/" target="_blank">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/community/centers/iis/</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Load balancing: stupid logic? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 23, 2003
Posts: 180
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Load balancing: stupid logic? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Tom Kaminski [MVP]" <tomk (A@T) mvps (D.O.T) org> wrote in message
news:brkddp$q0a6@kcweb01.netnews.att.com...
> "Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS)" <egbert_nierop.RemoveThis@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> Application Center includes NLB.
That's right. Thanks.
NLB is also a standalone product. To keep some bucks in your pocket  <!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Load balancing: stupid logic? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
