Load Balancing / Load Sharing over parallel paths
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by on November 21, 2005, 9:14 am
Please log in for more thread options Eigrp between them. The bandwidths are very close to each other (704K and 768K) so Eigrp Unequal cost load balancing doesn't really help me because the traffic share count is usually 1 to 1. I could get around this by altering the delay of one of the links and then maybe have a trafic share count of 2 to 1. I've tried per packet load balancing but because of the varying latencies in each link, that doesn't work out too well for me. What I would like to do is have a way of preferring the faster (less latency) link until the bandwidth reaches a certain point, then allowing the slower (greater latency) link to kick in. The reason being is that sometimes 1 user will download a huge file which will consume the entire bandwidth of 1 one link. Other users will try to connect and because of typical per session or per destination load balancing, they will attempt to also use the congested link. I would like to avoid this. I want a way to set a threshold for a particular link by % utilization, then put that link on hold until the % util drops below a certain point. If anyone sees what I mean here and has a solution, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank You | ||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Vincent C Jones on November 21, 2005, 10:57 am
Please log in for more thread options If the problem is a single FTP transfer, it sounds like weighted fair queueing (WFQ) is not doing its thing. Could be because WFQ has been disabled (or something about the configuration disables it by default), or you may need to add traffic shaping on the links to give WFQ a chance to kick in before the link is totally clogged. Good luck and have fun! -- Vincent C Jones, Consultant Expert advice and a helping hand Networking Unlimited, Inc. for those who want to manage and Tenafly, NJ Phone: 201 568-7810 control their networking destiny http://www.networkingunlimited.com | ||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Load Balancing / Load Sharing over parallel paths | November 21, 2005, 9:14 am |
| Load balance between two parallel paths | June 21, 2006, 6:26 am |
| BGP Load Sharing | November 30, 2005, 10:27 am |
| BGP load-sharing | September 16, 2006, 11:37 pm |
| solution for load sharing ? | August 17, 2005, 12:03 pm |
| PBR for load sharing purposes | October 30, 2005, 7:30 pm |
| NAT Overload and load sharing | March 25, 2007, 3:03 pm |
| Traffic Load sharing | March 25, 2007, 7:19 pm |
| Using Netflow and per packet load-sharing | October 25, 2005, 7:04 am |
| BGP load sharing with 2 default gateways | November 29, 2005, 10:04 pm |
| BGP load sharing with 2 default gateways | November 29, 2005, 10:07 pm |
| Load sharing between full T1 and fractional T1 | January 9, 2006, 2:58 pm |
| Circuit group for load-sharing | February 20, 2006, 11:15 am |
| ospf load sharing ASA to Router | March 28, 2007, 10:17 pm |
| Re: Load sharing on 2xWIC 1ADSL | May 26, 2007, 8:12 am |
>Eigrp between them. The bandwidths are very close to each other (704K
>and 768K) so Eigrp Unequal cost load balancing doesn't really help me
>because the traffic share count is usually 1 to 1.
>
>I could get around this by altering the delay of one of the links and
>then maybe have a trafic share count of 2 to 1.
>
>I've tried per packet load balancing but because of the varying
>latencies in each link, that doesn't work out too well for me.
>
>What I would like to do is have a way of preferring the faster (less
>latency) link until the bandwidth reaches a certain point, then
>allowing the slower (greater latency) link to kick in.
>
>The reason being is that sometimes 1 user will download a huge file
>which will consume the entire bandwidth of 1 one link. Other users
>will try to connect and because of typical per session or per
>destination load balancing, they will attempt to also use the congested
>link. I would like to avoid this. I want a way to set a threshold
>for a particular link by % utilization, then put that link on hold
>until the % util drops below a certain point.
>
>If anyone sees what I mean here and has a solution, that would be
>greatly appreciated.
>
>Thank You