RE: [load balancing] Question

From: Mael RIVOAL <mrivoal [izzat]>
Date: Thu Oct 05 2006 - 03:51:24 EDT

One important thing that i forget to tell. We must could configure
loadbalancer for accepting a direct server response, and simply.

-----Message d'origine-----
De : [] De la part de Mael
Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2006 10:24
À :
Objet : RE: [load balancing] Question


On 10/3/06, Mael RIVOAL <> wrote:
> Hi,
> Could you explain me a little this sentences ? "On Foundry-land be
> sure that the topology you plan to use is supported by all the
> features and performance you want, as you likely won't connect the
> servers directly to the ServerIron"

>Some topologies are not supported by Foundry on all software versions,
will have impact on performance or on available features.

>Here follow some of the questions you'll need to ask yourself; I'm not
familiar with current Foundry boxes, so I won't be able to determine the
feasability of a given hardware/software to your needs, but may be someone
else can.

> Our architecture is that we will connect the loadbalancer on a lan and
> no server should be connected on it directly. We'll use vlan on our
> network and Load balancer need to contact servers on LAN.

>Will/could/may not/ the loadbalancer be on the same VLANs that all
are ? Or is there a routing hop between the loadbalancer and the servers ?

The LB will be on the same Vlans than servers, it will have all needed vlan
configured on it.

> Our needs a simply on Layer4 and we're not plan to loadBalance at layer 7.

>Will/could/may not/ use direct server return ?

Yes many of server use direct return

>Inband health monitoring (detecting server failure before keepalive
>failure) is not needed/desirable/mandatory ?
Needed :)

The Load Balancing Mailing List
MRTG with SLB:
Hosted by:

The Load Balancing Mailing List
MRTG with SLB:
Hosted by:

Received on Thu Oct 5 03:51:40 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 05 2006 - 03:59:22 EDT