Comparing CSS versus Local Director Load Balancing

Unanswered Question
Feb 6th, 2007

We have simple load balancing requirements and the Local Director has worked great for our applications. 0 down time in years. But as its support is ending I'm finally migrating to CSS. I am looking for a document that compares the LDIR with the CSS as to how each achieves their load balancing.

Example LDIR:

virtual 10.1.1.60:80:0:tcp is

real 10.1.1.51:8443:0:tcp is

real 10.1.1.51:8443:0:tcp is

bind 10.1.1.60:443:0:tcp 10.1.1.51:8443:0:tcp

bind 10.1.1.60:443:0:tcp 10.1.1.52:8443:0:tcp

Example Local Director config

service web1

keepalive port 8443

protocol tcp

ip address 10.1.1.51

keepalive type tcp

port 8443

active

service web2

keepalive port 8443

protocol tcp

ip address 10.1.1.52

keepalive type tcp

port 8443

active

content myvirtual:443

add service web1

add service web2

balance aca

advanced-balance ssl

redundancy-l4-stateless

vip address 10.1.1.60

protocol tcp

port 443

active

Any comments on how the two devices LDIR and CSS would vary in how they accomplish the same goal would be appreciated. Of if you know of a white paper that contrasts these - that's cool too. Thanks.

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Loading.
mmedwid Mon, 02/12/2007 - 22:38

Thanks for your post. I'm familiar with the configuration process. What I'm looking for is a more in-depth treatment of how the load balancing is achieved with each device. I've found a good treatment of what goes on with the Local Director in its dispatch and and directed modes here..

http://www.qorbit.net/documents/cisco-local-director-abstract.htm

Now I just have to find the CSS sister document.

Actions

This Discussion