Microsoft NLB or NIC Teaming which is recommended

[whorner]

I have been searching Cisco's sight trying to find which method is prefered for MS server load balancing.

[m.mcconnell]

Cisco ususally will not provide information on how to configure equipment from a different mfg.

NLB or NIC Teaming? Depends what the environment is. If both server NICs are connected to the same switch you should be able to run NLB.

If the server NICs are connected to two different switches then you need to do NIC teaming with failover. NLB in this evironment can get funky.

-Mark

[thomuff]

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk213/technologies_configuration_example09186a008014edfa.shtml

[williamwbishop]

Also keep in mind that if you are not tied to the windows platform this is a built in function of linux. You get a free OS, and channel bonding out of the box. It takes about 4 minutes to set up(well, I've done it a few hundred times, it might take you longer) and the documentation is readily available.

I'm running an FTP server now with 6 nics in it, from different manufacturers and it works like a charm. I hate to waste 6 ports, but without gigabit uplinks, what are you going to do?

[whorner]

Hi Mark,

Thanks. I have been told by different people to use both methods but I could never get a concensus. This helps out alot.

Thank you,

Wayne

[m.mcconnell]

Glad I was able to help. Happy new year.

-Mark

[johansens]

You should be very careful when setting up NLB from Microsoft.. make sure you use the multicast-version or you will end up saturating all the other servers/ports in the same VLAN with the traffic destined for the NLB-servers.. (and imagine if you have trunk-ports to other access-switches which also carry this VLAN.. you'll choke them as well)..

(btw: all depending on the bandwidth of your links etc...)

Did it help?

[whorner]

Thanks for the help. The server guys want to setup two Windows 2003 servers as Terminal Servers to replace our Citrix environment. The idea is to load balance between both boxes.

[williamwbishop]

I can see where you would be tied to windows or at least unix on this one....but it seems like you would be stepping backwards in performance to replace citrix with 2k3TS. Unless it's an early, early version of citrix that is.

Just curious. Perhaps a licensing issue? Nothing personal, I beta tested 2k3 for microsoft and use it in a large envrionment now...but it can be a dog at times.

[whorner]

I agree. I have used Citrix in my previous position and have had great results. The move from Citrix to W2K3TS was made before I got here and is being handled by another department. The arguments I have heard are cost for licensing mostly. We really aren't using many of the features that Citrix gives us so I can see their point.