|
zhangxch wrote:
>
> why not try win2000's build in load balance module ?
Finally someone comes up with it. I didn't dare to mention it but
you might have a look at:
http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/win2000/nlbovw.asp?a=printable
This really is the first text I read from Microsoft that impressed
me quite a bit. They have some very advanced approach to clustering
and loadbalancing. For example (for those that don't want to read it):
o They have a slightely different architectural approach to LVS-DR.
It looks very promising and I'd love to test it out but I can't
since I don't have a copy of W2K.
o They claim to have a real cluster with fully distributed software
architecture.
o Because of the different design architecture they can achieve very
statistical load balanced services even with sticky option. Example:
"When inspecting an arriving packet, all hosts simultaneously perform
a statistical mapping to quickly determine which host should handle
the packet. The mapping uses a randomization function that calculates
a host priority based on the client's IP address, port, and other state
information maintained to optimize load balance. The corresponding
host forwards the packet up the network stack to TCP/IP, and the other
cluster hosts discard it."
o They have some kind of SSL Termination and persistent cookie support.
o Interesting arguments such as:" This architecture maximizes throughput
by using the broadcast subnet to deliver incoming network traffic to
all cluster hosts and by eliminating the need to route incoming
packets to individual cluster hosts. Since filtering unwanted packets
is faster than routing packets (which involves receiving, examining,
rewriting, and resending), Network Load Balancing delivers higher
network throughput than dispatcher-based solutions. As network and
server speeds grow, its throughput also grows proportionally, thus
eliminating any dependency on a particular hardware routing implementation.
For example, Network Load Balancing has demonstrated 250 megabits per
second (Mbps) throughput on Gigabit networks."
o they have PPC, persistency mask, different schedulers, failover,
healthcheck, state transition table synchronisation (see Convergence),
LVS-DR (somehow described under "Distribution of Cluster Traffic #1"),
event-logging, special ether type-value [0x886F], simple filtering.
o Oh, I forget to tell you that you can only go up to 32 servers :)
But hey, maybe he doesn't have a W2K farm :)
To finalize and come back to your initial question: Doesn't W2K have
something like a MS loopback adapter? In the paper above they mentioned
something like this (cluster adapter)
Best regards,
Roberto Nibali, ratz
--
mailto: `echo NrOatSz@xxxxxxxxx | sed 's/[NOSPAM]//g'`
|
