From: Kay D (krsna83@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 24 2006 - 13:46:35 ART
Hi James ,
HSRP with 1 group does not do equal Load distribution as
with 2 groups . But GLBP seems to be a good option, but i am looking forward
to deploy it in a 3750 . Does a 3750 support GLBP ?
Is there an application or some kinda mechanism ,,, which make a server to
choose the right NIC . For eg if the 3750 is the active switch for Server1
,,, i would like to control the server to send traffic only thru first NIC
,,,,as the second NIC shold be used until the link to switch 1 is down,,so
that it directs traffic thru the second uplink .
TIA
Kay D
On 7/24/06, James Ventre < messageboard@ventrefamily.com> wrote:
>
> > 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