From: James Ventre (messageboard@ventrefamily.com)
Date: Mon Jul 24 2006 - 10:31:58 ART
> So avoiding these disadvantages ,,, is is there another solution ?
1 Group. GLBP.
James
Kay D wrote:
> Is there a better way of doing MHSRP with Load Balancing in mind
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2 switches cat1 and cat2 ,,,with cat1 connected to servers s1 ,s2 (at
> fa0/1,fa0/2)and cat2 connected to servers s3,s4 (at f0/1 , f0/2) . I have
> connected servers s1,s2 to cat2
> at (fa0/3 , fa0/4) and similiarly i have connected servers s3 , s4 to cat1
> 's fa0/3 , fa0/4 for redundancy .
>
> Note: All the ports are in one vlan ie vlan 2
>
> Now i am running MHSRP ,
>
> I would like to restrict the number of MHSRP groups to 2 ,where
>
> a.)cat1 is active for GROUP 1(value of 110) AND passive for GROUP 2
> b.)cat2 is active for GROUP 2(value of 110) and passive for GROUP 1
>
> Now i track the interface f0/1 at cat1 , if f0/1 is down then i reduce the
> priority of group 1 to 90 ,,such that the cat2 would take over as active for
> s1
>
> So the question is based on the following ?
>
> i run MSHRP on a vlan 2, and if fa0/1 on cat1 is down then all the traffic
> from s2 also would go to cat2 eventhough Fa0/2 is up on cat1 .
>
> if i am running MHSRP on fa0/1 ,2,3,4 routed ports individually ,,,and i
> need to run 8 MHSRP groups which needs more processing power , if scale
> the number of servers to
> a larger number .
>
> So avoiding these disadvantages ,,, is is there another solution ?
>
> Apologies for making it so long
>
> TIA ,
> Kay D
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Aug 01 2006 - 07:13:48 ART