Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

traffic direction timeout

Hello

I have a CSS and I have 2 servers connected. Is it possible to direct the load to one server for a fixed period of time i.e. send traffic to server A for 12 hours and then send the traffic to server B for the next 12 hours and so on.

Thank You.

Donagh

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions
Cisco Employee

Re: traffic direction timeout

Donagh,

you can set a sticky inactive timeout

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/contnetw/ps789/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a00800d6b35.html#xtocid9

This is an inactive timeout, so as long as the connection comes in the sticky entry is not removed.

I don't think you can achieve exactly what you want but you can use this command to avoid all traffic to always go to the same server.

I'm not sure what is the end goal here so it is difficult to really provide the right solution.

Thanks and please rate answers.

Gilles.

6 REPLIES
Cisco Employee

Re: traffic direction timeout

this is possible.

The CSS has a command scheduler function.

You can have a first command that will activate service A and suspend service B every day at 8am and another command that will run every day at 8pm that will do just the opposite.

You can find some help with the cmd scheduler at

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/contnetw/ps789/products_tech_note09186a0080094348.shtml

Let me know if you need anything else and thanks for rating.

Gilles.

New Member

Re: traffic direction timeout

Thanks for your reply

Although that is a solution it will not provide redunancy if the service fails to ServerA as ServerB will be suspended. Can you think of anyway that this can be achieved while maintaining redundancy?

Thanks

Donagh

Cisco Employee

Re: traffic direction timeout

ok, here is the trick.

For each server you configure 2 services.

Lets's say A - A' and B - B'.

You add service A and B normally to the content rule.

Then you make A' a primarysorryserver and B' a secondarysorryserver.

The script mentioned in my initial response stays the same. You only active/suspend A and B at regular interval. A' and B' should always be active.

Like this you have a redundant solution.

Thanks.

Gilles.

New Member

Re: traffic direction timeout

thanks Gilles. sounds like a plan. Another twist to this is if I put it like this:

I have multiple users and I have 2 servers A and B. I want user 1 to hit server A for 12 hours, user 2 to hit server B for 12 hours, user 3 to hit server A for 12 hours, user 4 to hit server B for 12 hours and so on. sounds like the same thing but slighty different.

I suppose the question could be asked like this - is there a way to maintain stickiness for a set period of time? i could do stickiness based on srcip if I could put a timeout value against it.

Thanks again for your help and I will rate.

Donagh

Cisco Employee

Re: traffic direction timeout

Donagh,

you can set a sticky inactive timeout

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/contnetw/ps789/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a00800d6b35.html#xtocid9

This is an inactive timeout, so as long as the connection comes in the sticky entry is not removed.

I don't think you can achieve exactly what you want but you can use this command to avoid all traffic to always go to the same server.

I'm not sure what is the end goal here so it is difficult to really provide the right solution.

Thanks and please rate answers.

Gilles.

New Member

Re: traffic direction timeout

Gilles, the end goal is as previously described. The aim is for each individual user to maintain session affinity to one particular server for one day. I think the sticky inactivity timeout should do the trick. I will set it for 12 hours and do stickiness based on srcip.

My initial query turns out to be a bit of a red herring as I misinterpreted what was initially required! I am sure that kind of solution will be required at some stage though!

Thanks again for your help.

Donagh

123
Views
10
Helpful
6
Replies
CreatePlease login to create content