They don’t have logging running because of the massive data load. But the LB 
guy sent me the attached screenshot saying that it shows that all three nodes 
get an equal amount of requests.

If they really do, the I wonder why on one of the nodes I only see 2, 3 users 
and and on the others an equal amount. Those 3 users are BTW AR Admin and two 
technical users. Wired. Also speaking of amount of users I check the license 
usage. Not aware of any other way checking. Are you?


> On Feb 1, 2018, at 5:07 PM, LJ LongWing <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I've always preferred to use least connections personally, but from what I've 
> read of the docs they recommend round robin....but round robin doesn't 
> explain how your LB would be putting everyone on one node...it should 
> literally go 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3 for new connections, and as you discussed, keep 
> you on your current server if you are within the timeout, but you should have 
> fairly even load across nodes....do they keep logs of the monitor activity so 
> you can review if the monitor is reporting a server as down during specified 
> periods?  What monitor style are you using, ping, tcpip port, something else?
> 
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Hey LJ and thank you for the prompt reply.
> 
> Talked to them already. We’re using round robin. I’m not an expert on LB but 
> my understanding was that we would have about an equal amount of users on all 
> AR Servers using it.
> 
> The guy explained that once you connect there is a time out of 180 seconds. 
> If you do something within the 180 seconds you will end up on the same 
> server. If you don’t they will balance. Sounds plausible. Any yet what’s the 
> likelihood that people then will be balanced on the second box and not the 
> third.
> 
> Does anyone there use round robin as well? How do your users get distributed? 
> What are you Mid Tier settings, connection settings in particular?
> 
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 1, 2018, at 4:49 PM, LJ LongWing <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>> Thomas,
>> You'll need to work with the LB team to identify what distribution method 
>> they are using....common options are 'round robin' in which it just simply 
>> points everything at each server in turn, 'least connections' where it tries 
>> to analyze how many are 'currently' connected to each node and send the 
>> traffic to the one with the least current load....you'll also want to check 
>> and verify that the monitor that you are using to determine if a node is 
>> online or not is functioning properly because if the LB monitor says a node 
>> is down, it obviously won't send any traffic to it...but if that monitor is 
>> faulty, it might be up and running but not reporting as online and can cause 
>> the scenario you described...
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> Hi Listers,
>> 
>> we got a physical load balancer before the Mid-Tier servers and a logical 
>> load balancer between the Mid Tier and our AR Servers.
>> 
>> We noticed that on some days all the users land on only one AR Server. On 
>> other days two. What’s the reason behind it? What do we need to configure 
>> and to enforce equal distribution?
>> 
>> 
>> Thomas
>> --
>> ARSList mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist 
>> <https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist>
>> 
>> -- 
>> ARSList mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist 
>> <https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist>
> 
> 
> --
> ARSList mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist 
> <https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist>
> 
> 
> -- 
> ARSList mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

-- 
ARSList mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

Reply via email to