Which is More Powerful

Hello,
I have the following:

1. Compaq Proliant 5500, Quad Xeon Processors at 733 MHz and 1 Gig of RAM.

2. 1 Compaq Proliant DL580, Dual PIII-733 MHz and 1 Gig of RAM.

3. 1 Compaq Proliant DL380, Dual PIII-733 MHz and 1 Gig of RAM.

Which of the 3 computers is more powerful for web hosting? What is the
"best" practice for configuring the 3 systems for web hosting??



Thank you,


Charles L. Phillips

Ace
Sun Jul 06 21:55:51 PDT 2008

In news:ucuJbt93IHA.4988@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
Charles L. Phillips <tptbusines_2005@hotmail.com> typed:
> Hello,
> I have the following:
>
> 1. Compaq Proliant 5500, Quad Xeon Processors at 733 MHz and 1 Gig of
> RAM.
> 2. 1 Compaq Proliant DL580, Dual PIII-733 MHz and 1 Gig of RAM.
>
> 3. 1 Compaq Proliant DL380, Dual PIII-733 MHz and 1 Gig of RAM.
>
> Which of the 3 computers is more powerful for web hosting? What is the
> "best" practice for configuring the 3 systems for web hosting??
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
> Charles L. Phillips

I would say door #1. The quad obviously has more resources with the 4 CPUs.
However, these machines are quite dated. If you want or need something to
run the more current apps and features more efficiently, I would suggest, if
the budget agrees, to update them to a more current machine, at least within
2 years old.

Best practice for a web server? Or for NLB (Network Load Balancing) the
three together? There is much to web hosting. Too much to discuss here, and
I'm not sure exactly what you're intentions are regarding these servers. Do
you want to pick the best and dump the other two on eBay or something? Or do
you want them to work together? Will you be hosting them at your site or
elsewhere? What type of line? Firewall? What type of web apps will they run?
ASP CGI? Do you expect numerous hits such as what Microsoft's site gets per
day or something just for the company intranet? What else will be on the
machines? Will they be running apps that internal users be using? Will they
run other services, such as FTP, SMTP, etc?

So you see, there is much to this question. Basically and depending on the
size of the company, it's usually recommended to host it elsewhere such as
with a web hosting company to relieve the overhead of your resources, line
speed being eaten up by web hits, etc, etc.

Maybe if you can elaborate, we can focus on your scenario to better assist
what is good for YOU.

--
Regards,
Ace

This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and
confers no rights.

Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCSE+I, MCT,
MVP Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
Microsoft Certified Trainer

For urgent issues, you may want to contact Microsoft PSS directly. Please
check http://support.microsoft.com for regional support phone numbers.

Infinite Diversities in Infinite Combinations

Charles
Mon Jul 07 09:45:46 PDT 2008

Hello,
"Thank You" for your reply.
I'm looking to apply experiment, techniques and theories, until my budget is
ready.
I want tie the DL's together (Parallel Cluster), and use the 5500 as the
fail-over, if 1 of the DL's fail.

I want to try cascading cluster, with the 5500 as the fail-over.

I want to try NLB (Network Load Balancing) the three together.


I want the servers to work together, in the above configurations. I will be
hosting the site myself. I will be using a 3Com network configuration.
As for web apps, ASP and CGI. No additional non-services app services or
server services will be running. The databases for the web servers will sit
on other servers. I have a T1 line. I am looking to test for security
gaps/holes. I am looking to reduce points of failure. I do expect an extreme
amount of hits per day. As for the company's intranet, that's on another set
of servers. No company internal apps will run on these servers. These
servers will host web site only. I'm looking to find and test the "best"
possible configuration...



Thank you,


Charles L. Phillips


"Ace Fekay [MVP]" <PleaseAskMe@SomeDomain.com> wrote in message
news:eQMIc3%233IHA.5060@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> In news:ucuJbt93IHA.4988@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
> Charles L. Phillips <tptbusines_2005@hotmail.com> typed:
>> Hello,
>> I have the following:
>>
>> 1. Compaq Proliant 5500, Quad Xeon Processors at 733 MHz and 1 Gig of
>> RAM.
>> 2. 1 Compaq Proliant DL580, Dual PIII-733 MHz and 1 Gig of RAM.
>>
>> 3. 1 Compaq Proliant DL380, Dual PIII-733 MHz and 1 Gig of RAM.
>>
>> Which of the 3 computers is more powerful for web hosting? What is the
>> "best" practice for configuring the 3 systems for web hosting??
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>>
>> Charles L. Phillips
>
> I would say door #1. The quad obviously has more resources with the 4
> CPUs. However, these machines are quite dated. If you want or need
> something to run the more current apps and features more efficiently, I
> would suggest, if the budget agrees, to update them to a more current
> machine, at least within 2 years old.
>
> Best practice for a web server? Or for NLB (Network Load Balancing) the
> three together? There is much to web hosting. Too much to discuss here,
> and I'm not sure exactly what you're intentions are regarding these
> servers. Do you want to pick the best and dump the other two on eBay or
> something? Or do you want them to work together? Will you be hosting them
> at your site or elsewhere? What type of line? Firewall? What type of web
> apps will they run? ASP CGI? Do you expect numerous hits such as what
> Microsoft's site gets per day or something just for the company intranet?
> What else will be on the machines? Will they be running apps that internal
> users be using? Will they run other services, such as FTP, SMTP, etc?
>
> So you see, there is much to this question. Basically and depending on
> the size of the company, it's usually recommended to host it elsewhere
> such as with a web hosting company to relieve the overhead of your
> resources, line speed being eaten up by web hits, etc, etc.
>
> Maybe if you can elaborate, we can focus on your scenario to better assist
> what is good for YOU.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Ace
>
> This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and
> confers no rights.
>
> Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCSE+I, MCT,
> MVP Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
> Microsoft Certified Trainer
>
> For urgent issues, you may want to contact Microsoft PSS directly. Please
> check http://support.microsoft.com for regional support phone numbers.
>
> Infinite Diversities in Infinite Combinations
>
>
>

Ace
Mon Jul 07 21:39:04 PDT 2008

In news:OHuFsDF4IHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
Charles L. Phillips <tptbusines_2005@hotmail.com> typed:
> Hello,
> "Thank You" for your reply.
> I'm looking to apply experiment, techniques and theories, until my
> budget is ready.
> I want tie the DL's together (Parallel Cluster), and use the 5500 as
> the fail-over, if 1 of the DL's fail.
>
> I want to try cascading cluster, with the 5500 as the fail-over.
>
> I want to try NLB (Network Load Balancing) the three together.
>
>
> I want the servers to work together, in the above configurations. I
> will be hosting the site myself. I will be using a 3Com network
> configuration. As for web apps, ASP and CGI. No additional non-services
> app services
> or server services will be running. The databases for the web servers
> will sit on other servers. I have a T1 line. I am looking to test for
> security gaps/holes. I am looking to reduce points of failure. I do
> expect an extreme amount of hits per day. As for the company's
> intranet, that's on another set of servers. No company internal apps
> will run on these servers. These servers will host web site only. I'm
> looking to find and test the "best" possible configuration...
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
> Charles L. Phillips

I would suggest to use NLB for web hosting, not clustering. Clustering is
overkill for this task. With NLB, you can load balance between the three. I
worked for one company that I setup an NLB for one of ESPN's websites (my
client only worked on one of their numerous sites) with three Dell 2650's
and it worked like a charm. I can't tell you what site it is because of it
being privlidged information, but the setup was handling over 100,000 hits
per hour without a problem.

The best way is to read up on NLB and use some of the IIS resource kit tools
to test load balancing. As for website security, it doesn't matter if you
are using NLB or not, it's still web security and that's a whole other
issue. ASP is suggested to be used instead of CGI because CGI has too many
holes.

For NLB information, instead of posting all the relevant links, I ran a
search using Google and it came up with many Microsoft links that explain
how to set it up because keep in mind, there's the TCPIP component as well
that needs to be setup as well.

Google search: "Windows NLB"
http://www.google.com/search?q=windows+nlb&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ITVA

For further information concerning web config, etc,, I suggest to post to
the microsoft.public.inetserver.iis newsgroup. I cross-posted this post to
that group. Maybe those folks can offer additional information for you.

X-posted to microsoft.public.inetserver.iis newsgroup
Followups set to both microsoft.public.inetserver.iis newsgroup and
microsoft.public.windows.server.general

Ace

Charles
Wed Jul 09 19:08:41 PDT 2008


Hello,
One last question???
Why would clustering be considered overkill???



Thank you,


Charles L. Phillips



"Ace Fekay [MVP]" <PleaseAskMe@SomeDomain.com> wrote in message
news:u8XJuSL4IHA.4448@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> In news:OHuFsDF4IHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
> Charles L. Phillips <tptbusines_2005@hotmail.com> typed:
>> Hello,
>> "Thank You" for your reply.
>> I'm looking to apply experiment, techniques and theories, until my
>> budget is ready.
>> I want tie the DL's together (Parallel Cluster), and use the 5500 as
>> the fail-over, if 1 of the DL's fail.
>>
>> I want to try cascading cluster, with the 5500 as the fail-over.
>>
>> I want to try NLB (Network Load Balancing) the three together.
>>
>>
>> I want the servers to work together, in the above configurations. I
>> will be hosting the site myself. I will be using a 3Com network
>> configuration. As for web apps, ASP and CGI. No additional non-services
>> app services
>> or server services will be running. The databases for the web servers
>> will sit on other servers. I have a T1 line. I am looking to test for
>> security gaps/holes. I am looking to reduce points of failure. I do
>> expect an extreme amount of hits per day. As for the company's
>> intranet, that's on another set of servers. No company internal apps
>> will run on these servers. These servers will host web site only. I'm
>> looking to find and test the "best" possible configuration...
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>>
>> Charles L. Phillips
>
> I would suggest to use NLB for web hosting, not clustering. Clustering is
> overkill for this task. With NLB, you can load balance between the three.
> I worked for one company that I setup an NLB for one of ESPN's websites
> (my client only worked on one of their numerous sites) with three Dell
> 2650's and it worked like a charm. I can't tell you what site it is
> because of it being privlidged information, but the setup was handling
> over 100,000 hits per hour without a problem.
>
> The best way is to read up on NLB and use some of the IIS resource kit
> tools to test load balancing. As for website security, it doesn't matter
> if you are using NLB or not, it's still web security and that's a whole
> other issue. ASP is suggested to be used instead of CGI because CGI has
> too many holes.
>
> For NLB information, instead of posting all the relevant links, I ran a
> search using Google and it came up with many Microsoft links that explain
> how to set it up because keep in mind, there's the TCPIP component as well
> that needs to be setup as well.
>
> Google search: "Windows NLB"
> http://www.google.com/search?q=windows+nlb&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ITVA
>
> For further information concerning web config, etc,, I suggest to post to
> the microsoft.public.inetserver.iis newsgroup. I cross-posted this post to
> that group. Maybe those folks can offer additional information for you.
>
> X-posted to microsoft.public.inetserver.iis newsgroup
> Followups set to both microsoft.public.inetserver.iis newsgroup and
> microsoft.public.windows.server.general
>
> Ace
>

Ace
Wed Jul 09 22:32:27 PDT 2008

In news:e9fmiHj4IHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
Charles L. Phillips <tptbusines_2005@hotmail.com> typed:
> Hello,
> One last question???
> Why would clustering be considered overkill???
> Thank you,
>
> Charles L. Phillips

Cost and resource overhead involved with managing it. Also it's designed for
applications at the application layer, not IIS, which you would rather want
at the network layer to distribute load. IIS load balancing is what you want
to use for it's ability to load balance. Besides, clustering offers multiple
machines not necessarily all load balanced unless you use Active-Active
clustering, which eliminates fault tolerance that Active-Passive provides.
NLB is designed specifically for this because it works with the inbound
requests at the network layer, whereas Clustering works at the app layer.
With IIS you want something handling network layer traffic.

There's alot more to it too as to why you don't want clustering. Read the
following article and let me know what you think afterwards.

Cluster Service with IIS: How and why:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1000000091,2124314,00.htm

Ace

Charles
Wed Jul 09 23:44:53 PDT 2008



Hello,

I found you article interesting & thought stimulating.

What advantage does NLB have over CC (Cascade Clustering)???

I want to make sure I "feed" the need of a demanding site or sites. I
believe, feel & think there is a demand for fault-tolerance (dual fault
tolerance).

I have read & researched where multiple servers (last years World Series
request) could not meet the need of an extended demand of the server(s)
request. If one server fails, can NLB carry the request demand???





"Ace Fekay [MVP]" <PleaseAskMe@SomeDomain.com> wrote in message
news:%23Vm845k4IHA.4856@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> In news:e9fmiHj4IHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
> Charles L. Phillips <tptbusines_2005@hotmail.com> typed:
>> Hello,
>> One last question???
>> Why would clustering be considered overkill???
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Charles L. Phillips
>
> Cost and resource overhead involved with managing it. Also it's designed
> for applications at the application layer, not IIS, which you would rather
> want at the network layer to distribute load. IIS load balancing is what
> you want to use for it's ability to load balance. Besides, clustering
> offers multiple machines not necessarily all load balanced unless you use
> Active-Active clustering, which eliminates fault tolerance that
> Active-Passive provides. NLB is designed specifically for this because it
> works with the inbound requests at the network layer, whereas Clustering
> works at the app layer. With IIS you want something handling network layer
> traffic.
>
> There's alot more to it too as to why you don't want clustering. Read the
> following article and let me know what you think afterwards.
>
> Cluster Service with IIS: How and why:
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1000000091,2124314,00.htm
>
> Ace
>
>

Ace
Fri Jul 11 21:50:08 PDT 2008

In news:e4I92hl4IHA.3796@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
Charles L. Phillips <tptbusines_2005@hotmail.com> typed:
> Hello,
>
> I found you article interesting & thought stimulating.
>
> What advantage does NLB have over CC (Cascade Clustering)???
>
> I want to make sure I "feed" the need of a demanding site or sites. I
> believe, feel & think there is a demand for fault-tolerance (dual
> fault tolerance).
>
> I have read & researched where multiple servers (last years World
> Series request) could not meet the need of an extended demand of the
> server(s) request. If one server fails, can NLB carry the request
> demand???

I haven't used Cascade Clustering nor honestly, ever heard of it applying to
Windows Clusters. When I first saw your post, I thought, Nuclear cascading
chain reaction, such as in a nuclear accelerator, or bifurcating atoms. I'm
sure you don't want to do that.

I am not a clustering expert. To answer that, I would suggest the clustering
newsgroup.

I guess they didn't have enough servers. :-) In such a case, I wouldn't use
NLB, and clustering would be pointless since it doesn't handle what IIS
needs anyway, as the article I provided indicated. In this case, I would
suggest a third party solution such as BigIP that can host a farm of 50 or
more servers behind it effectively handling whatever you throw at it. I
assume they miscalculated the hits to their site, which can happen if you
don't expect a huge turnout. LIke I said, I setup one of ESPN's sites with
no problems, but then again it wasn't the Superbowl, nor do I expect a large
number of hits after a Superbowl as I would expect to www.nfl.com,
especially if they are offering web based viewing of the game, but then
again, I would rather watch the game or any NFL game for that matter, on a
52" or bigger Sony XBR4 LCD or the new HDNA LCDs along with 7.1 surround
sound simulcast.

Cross-posted this to clustering too.

To the cluster folks, the following is the original thread which evolved
into a Clustering vs NLB discussion for IIS:

Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.server.general
From: "Charles L. Phillips" <tptbusines_2005@hotmail.com>
Subject: Which is More Powerful
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 19:44:16 -0700

or

http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/list/en-us/default.aspx?pg=5&cat=&lang=&cr=&guid=&sloc=en-us&dg=microsoft.public.windows.server.general&fltr=


Ace

Charles
Thu Jul 17 09:02:51 PDT 2008

Hello,
"Thank You" for ALL of your insight & suggestions, I will truly study
them...



Thank you,


Charles L. Phillips


"Ace Fekay [MVP]" <PleaseAskMe@SomeDomain.com> wrote in message
news:%23$%23Pqt94IHA.408@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> In news:e4I92hl4IHA.3796@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
> Charles L. Phillips <tptbusines_2005@hotmail.com> typed:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I found you article interesting & thought stimulating.
>>
>> What advantage does NLB have over CC (Cascade Clustering)???
>>
>> I want to make sure I "feed" the need of a demanding site or sites. I
>> believe, feel & think there is a demand for fault-tolerance (dual
>> fault tolerance).
>>
>> I have read & researched where multiple servers (last years World
>> Series request) could not meet the need of an extended demand of the
>> server(s) request. If one server fails, can NLB carry the request
>> demand???
>
> I haven't used Cascade Clustering nor honestly, ever heard of it applying
> to Windows Clusters. When I first saw your post, I thought, Nuclear
> cascading chain reaction, such as in a nuclear accelerator, or bifurcating
> atoms. I'm sure you don't want to do that.
>
> I am not a clustering expert. To answer that, I would suggest the
> clustering newsgroup.
>
> I guess they didn't have enough servers. :-) In such a case, I wouldn't
> use NLB, and clustering would be pointless since it doesn't handle what
> IIS needs anyway, as the article I provided indicated. In this case, I
> would suggest a third party solution such as BigIP that can host a farm of
> 50 or more servers behind it effectively handling whatever you throw at
> it. I assume they miscalculated the hits to their site, which can happen
> if you don't expect a huge turnout. LIke I said, I setup one of ESPN's
> sites with no problems, but then again it wasn't the Superbowl, nor do I
> expect a large number of hits after a Superbowl as I would expect to
> www.nfl.com, especially if they are offering web based viewing of the
> game, but then again, I would rather watch the game or any NFL game for
> that matter, on a 52" or bigger Sony XBR4 LCD or the new HDNA LCDs along
> with 7.1 surround sound simulcast.
>
> Cross-posted this to clustering too.
>
> To the cluster folks, the following is the original thread which evolved
> into a Clustering vs NLB discussion for IIS:
>
> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.server.general
> From: "Charles L. Phillips" <tptbusines_2005@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Which is More Powerful
> Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 19:44:16 -0700
>
> or
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/list/en-us/default.aspx?pg=5&cat=&lang=&cr=&guid=&sloc=en-us&dg=microsoft.public.windows.server.general&fltr=
>
>
> Ace
>

Ace
Thu Jul 17 21:56:54 PDT 2008

In news:eAVATaC6IHA.3784@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
Charles L. Phillips <tptbusines_2005@hotmail.com> typed:
> Hello,
> "Thank You" for ALL of your insight & suggestions, I will truly study
> them...
>
> Thank you,
>
> Charles L. Phillips

If you have additional questions concerning clustering or anything else,
post back.

Take care.
Ace

Charles
Mon Jul 21 09:08:56 PDT 2008

Hello,
"Thank You", for the offer. I look forward to posting on this subject.
I have LOTS of concerns & questions...



Thank you,


Charles L. Phillips


"Ace Fekay [MVP]" <PleaseAskMe@SomeDomain.com> wrote in message
news:uiOjWLJ6IHA.2348@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> In news:eAVATaC6IHA.3784@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
> Charles L. Phillips <tptbusines_2005@hotmail.com> typed:
>> Hello,
>> "Thank You" for ALL of your insight & suggestions, I will truly study
>> them...
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Charles L. Phillips
>
> If you have additional questions concerning clustering or anything else,
> post back.
>
> Take care.
> Ace
>

Ace
Mon Jul 21 16:47:04 PDT 2008

In news:Ov0YWw06IHA.3816@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
Charles L. Phillips <tptbusines_2005@hotmail.com> typed:
> Hello,
> "Thank You", for the offer. I look forward to posting on this subject.
> I have LOTS of concerns & questions...

My pleasure. :-)

Ace

Charles
Wed Jul 23 21:25:20 PDT 2008

Hello,
When it comes to NIC Teaming, what are the pros & cons of, "Adaptive Load
Balancing" & "Switch Fault Tolerance"???
Of the 2 configurations mentioned, which offer more stability????



Thank you,


Charles L. Phillips


"Ace Fekay [MVP]" <PleaseAskMe@SomeDomain.com> wrote in message
news:u1hB6w46IHA.4596@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> In news:Ov0YWw06IHA.3816@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
> Charles L. Phillips <tptbusines_2005@hotmail.com> typed:
>> Hello,
>> "Thank You", for the offer. I look forward to posting on this subject.
>> I have LOTS of concerns & questions...
>
> My pleasure. :-)
>
> Ace
>

Edwin
Fri Jul 25 07:45:37 PDT 2008

In regards to clustering, do NOT use "Load balanding".. it will cause
unexplainable behaviour and is not supported

Fault tolerance is OK for the public network, NOT for the Private network.

Rgds,
Edwin.



"Charles L. Phillips" <tptbusines_2005@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23chTKVU7IHA.2348@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> When it comes to NIC Teaming, what are the pros & cons of, "Adaptive Load
> Balancing" & "Switch Fault Tolerance"???
> Of the 2 configurations mentioned, which offer more stability????
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
> Charles L. Phillips
>
>
> "Ace Fekay [MVP]" <PleaseAskMe@SomeDomain.com> wrote in message
> news:u1hB6w46IHA.4596@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > In news:Ov0YWw06IHA.3816@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
> > Charles L. Phillips <tptbusines_2005@hotmail.com> typed:
> >> Hello,
> >> "Thank You", for the offer. I look forward to posting on this subject.
> >> I have LOTS of concerns & questions...
> >
> > My pleasure. :-)
> >
> > Ace
> >
>
>

Edwin
Fri Jul 25 07:49:47 PDT 2008

IGNORE my last post in this thread please,
I thought the questions was for Failover Clustering, it is clearly NLB

I will eat my hat now.......

rgds,
Edwin.


"Edwin vMierlo [MVP]" <EdwinvMierlo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:uftXbUm7IHA.3260@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> In regards to clustering, do NOT use "Load balanding".. it will cause
> unexplainable behaviour and is not supported
>
> Fault tolerance is OK for the public network, NOT for the Private network.
>
> Rgds,
> Edwin.
>
>
>
> "Charles L. Phillips" <tptbusines_2005@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23chTKVU7IHA.2348@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> > Hello,
> > When it comes to NIC Teaming, what are the pros & cons of, "Adaptive
Load
> > Balancing" & "Switch Fault Tolerance"???
> > Of the 2 configurations mentioned, which offer more stability????
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> >
> > Charles L. Phillips
> >
> >
> > "Ace Fekay [MVP]" <PleaseAskMe@SomeDomain.com> wrote in message
> > news:u1hB6w46IHA.4596@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > > In news:Ov0YWw06IHA.3816@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
> > > Charles L. Phillips <tptbusines_2005@hotmail.com> typed:
> > >> Hello,
> > >> "Thank You", for the offer. I look forward to posting on this
subject.
> > >> I have LOTS of concerns & questions...
> > >
> > > My pleasure. :-)
> > >
> > > Ace
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Russ
Fri Jul 25 11:58:23 PDT 2008

"Charles L. Phillips" <tptbusines_2005@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23chTKVU7IHA.2348@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> When it comes to NIC Teaming, what are the pros & cons of, "Adaptive Load
> Balancing" & "Switch Fault Tolerance"???
> Of the 2 configurations mentioned, which offer more stability????

NIC teaming is not supported for NLB at all.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/clusterhelp/archive/2006/06/05/network-load-balancing-nlb-and-network-interface-card-nic-teaming.aspx

NIC teaming is often used for the Public NIC in server clustering. However,
there are some known issues with load balanced teaming, so I always
recommend fault tolerant teaming. Also, you should never use any NIC teaming
with private networks.

--
Russ Kaufmann,
MCSE: Messaging and Security, MCT, MCITP, MCTS and other stuff

ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp

The next ClusterHelp classes are:
July 28-31 in Pittsburgh
Oct 13-16 in New York

Charles
Sun Jul 27 07:55:44 PDT 2008

Hello,
Apology accepted. No need to eat your hat.
Try carrots...



Thank you,


Charles L. Phillips


"Edwin vMierlo [MVP]" <EdwinvMierlo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:%23MzhwWm7IHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> IGNORE my last post in this thread please,
> I thought the questions was for Failover Clustering, it is clearly NLB
>
> I will eat my hat now.......
>
> rgds,
> Edwin.
>
>
> "Edwin vMierlo [MVP]" <EdwinvMierlo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:uftXbUm7IHA.3260@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> In regards to clustering, do NOT use "Load balanding".. it will cause
>> unexplainable behaviour and is not supported
>>
>> Fault tolerance is OK for the public network, NOT for the Private
>> network.
>>
>> Rgds,
>> Edwin.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Charles L. Phillips" <tptbusines_2005@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23chTKVU7IHA.2348@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> > Hello,
>> > When it comes to NIC Teaming, what are the pros & cons of, "Adaptive
> Load
>> > Balancing" & "Switch Fault Tolerance"???
>> > Of the 2 configurations mentioned, which offer more stability????
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> >
>> >
>> > Charles L. Phillips
>> >
>> >
>> > "Ace Fekay [MVP]" <PleaseAskMe@SomeDomain.com> wrote in message
>> > news:u1hB6w46IHA.4596@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> > > In news:Ov0YWw06IHA.3816@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
>> > > Charles L. Phillips <tptbusines_2005@hotmail.com> typed:
>> > >> Hello,
>> > >> "Thank You", for the offer. I look forward to posting on this
> subject.
>> > >> I have LOTS of concerns & questions...
>> > >
>> > > My pleasure. :-)
>> > >
>> > > Ace
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

Charles
Sun Jul 27 08:05:31 PDT 2008

Hello,
"Thank You" for the information. Your input was VERY clear.
Execellent "blog"...



Thank you,


Charles L. Phillips


"Russ Kaufmann" <russ@clusterhelp.com> wrote in message
news:C957895D-C512-4C5E-BAF7-1303ACE28F09@microsoft.com...
> "Charles L. Phillips" <tptbusines_2005@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23chTKVU7IHA.2348@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Hello,
>> When it comes to NIC Teaming, what are the pros & cons of, "Adaptive Load
>> Balancing" & "Switch Fault Tolerance"???
>> Of the 2 configurations mentioned, which offer more stability????
>
> NIC teaming is not supported for NLB at all.
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/clusterhelp/archive/2006/06/05/network-load-balancing-nlb-and-network-interface-card-nic-teaming.aspx
>
> NIC teaming is often used for the Public NIC in server clustering.
> However, there are some known issues with load balanced teaming, so I
> always recommend fault tolerant teaming. Also, you should never use any
> NIC teaming with private networks.
>
> --
> Russ Kaufmann,
> MCSE: Messaging and Security, MCT, MCITP, MCTS and other stuff
>
> ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
> Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
> Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
>
> The next ClusterHelp classes are:
> July 28-31 in Pittsburgh
> Oct 13-16 in New York