Load balance two servers or not??

Hi

Your story is not 100% clear of what you want.

Please explain what excactly you want to load balance?!

Hi,
Sorry - I thought that if we have two servers running that mirror each other and the network traffic gets divided between them then if one fails we can remove that from the system and fix it whilst still carrying on working on the one remaining server until the other is back online.

Thanks

We don't need the load balancing for performance only redundancy as we can't have the system down in working hours at all as it cost too much

...that we can get either one or two new servers... ...as we can’t be without the system. This will then allow us to keep working if the HP or one of the servers fail.

You are actually describing a worst case/failover scenario.  If one server crashes, you do not want to be down any longer than necessary...

Take this example for instance:

A client of mine recently had a major server failure.  Using bare bones recovery, it took 5 days to get the server back online.  To avoid this in the future, we installed a new server and enabled replication between the two.  If you connect to the server, you are hitting 192.xxx.xx.10, but if that server crashes, I tell the firewall to point the replicated server, 192.xxx.xx.20 (switchover).

Is this what you have in mind?  How is your network setup?  How many applications do you run and what type?  Is this the only server?

What you are asking fo can be possible and even more reliable if you use lockstep technology (Stratus, Bull, Nec and some other vendors) and it is very, very expensive .  What you need is virtualization where if the host server crashes, you could boot the VM on a different host.  If your application is RDP or  Citrix then you could have multiple application servers where users are connected across all servers.

What apps are you running on this server?

Load balancing <> High Availability.