bleujaegel
asked on
NLB with 2 NIC's
I am attempting to setup NLB with 2 network cards (as recommended) on my LAN, and would like to know if this will cause routing problems in the following scenario.
Cluster IP 192.168.1.100 > all /24 - all NIC's plugged into the same Netgear router/switch
**************************
Server1
NIC #1 (cluster host IP)
IP 192.168.1.101
Gateway 192.168.1.1
DNS 192.168.1.2
NIC #2 (other LAN traffic IP)
IP 192.168.1.3
Gateway 192.168.1.1
DNS 192.168.1.2
**************************
Server2
NIC #1 (cluster host IP)
IP 192.168.1.102
Gateway 192.168.1.1
DNS 192.168.1.2
NIC #2 (other LAN traffic IP)
IP 192.168.1.4
Gateway 192.168.1.1
DNS 192.168.1.2
So far, I am having routing problems on Server 1, but not Server 2, and just need to know if this is a problem having all NIC's pointing to the same gateway or if this is an acceptible scenario. Something tells me that this is not correct, but I thought I would get confirmation from an expert. Thanks.
Cluster IP 192.168.1.100 > all /24 - all NIC's plugged into the same Netgear router/switch
**************************
Server1
NIC #1 (cluster host IP)
IP 192.168.1.101
Gateway 192.168.1.1
DNS 192.168.1.2
NIC #2 (other LAN traffic IP)
IP 192.168.1.3
Gateway 192.168.1.1
DNS 192.168.1.2
**************************
Server2
NIC #1 (cluster host IP)
IP 192.168.1.102
Gateway 192.168.1.1
DNS 192.168.1.2
NIC #2 (other LAN traffic IP)
IP 192.168.1.4
Gateway 192.168.1.1
DNS 192.168.1.2
So far, I am having routing problems on Server 1, but not Server 2, and just need to know if this is a problem having all NIC's pointing to the same gateway or if this is an acceptible scenario. Something tells me that this is not correct, but I thought I would get confirmation from an expert. Thanks.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
NJComputerNetworks
http://www.brianmadden.com/content/content.asp?id=278 (good resource)
ASKER
Ok, I see. Keep the NLB's connected directly via a separate subnet, using a host file for 'DNS' resolution. Why are the default gateways left blank? Does the OS automatically add the necessary routes to the routing table to allow for inbound/outbound communications?
Would it be correct to say that the 10.0.0.0 subnet is strictly for communications between the two servers, and no outside traffic? I'm guessing that you are running unicast mode. Also, are the external requests are routed to the NIC's with the .101 & .102 IP's only? From what I've read, it sounds like you have 2 NIC's, the 192.168.1.101 & 102 running multicast mode, and the 10.10.10.1 & 2 running unicast. Am I close? Thanks.
Would it be correct to say that the 10.0.0.0 subnet is strictly for communications between the two servers, and no outside traffic? I'm guessing that you are running unicast mode. Also, are the external requests are routed to the NIC's with the .101 & .102 IP's only? From what I've read, it sounds like you have 2 NIC's, the 192.168.1.101 & 102 running multicast mode, and the 10.10.10.1 & 2 running unicast. Am I close? Thanks.
ASKER
I'm assuming I could use a switch instead of a crossover cable for heartbeat communications, which would then allow me to scale out at multiple NLB servers. Would this be correct?
"Why are the default gateways left blank?" Blank because no routing is needed... crossover cable doesn't need a gateway.. If you place a switch here, you want' need a default gateway either unless you have multiple networks.
"Would it be correct to say that the 10.0.0.0 subnet is strictly for communications between the two servers, and no outside traffic? " Yes, this is correct...
This is just the way I set it up... I don't know if it is optimal...but it seems to work for my environment...
"Would it be correct to say that the 10.0.0.0 subnet is strictly for communications between the two servers, and no outside traffic? " Yes, this is correct...
This is just the way I set it up... I don't know if it is optimal...but it seems to work for my environment...
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Your correct OBdA, I must have added the second NIC (not for a heartbeat) but because I found my hosts could not communicate with one another:
Inter-host communication in unicast mode
In unicast mode, each host in the cluster has the same IP Address and the same MAC Address making them look identical from a networking perspective. So, unicast mode has the side effect of disabling communication among the hosts of the cluster.
Inter-host communication in unicast mode
In unicast mode, each host in the cluster has the same IP Address and the same MAC Address making them look identical from a networking perspective. So, unicast mode has the side effect of disabling communication among the hosts of the cluster.
ASKER
Working good. I will try unicast mode next...
Thanks for the help.
Thanks for the help.