Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Vestal, NY
    Posts
    1,381

    Question Load Balancer Questions - Barracuda 340

    Attached is a .txt file showing my desired topology. Here is my question for any load balancing (and especailly Barracuda) gurus:

    I've got 3 machines and I need to balance tcp port 5222 between them using a Barracuda 340 load balancing appliance. The 3 machines are currently connected publicly to a 100Mbbps switch and we want to avoid taking them offline for even a second SOMEHOW. They each have public IPs that we want them to remain accessible by no matter what.

    They all have dual NICs and all also have private IPs that are bound via a seperate internal Gbps switch between them.

    We want to add the Barracuda device to that private switch, and then give it a SEPERATE uplink to the intenet (a new gigabit uplink). So the internet would be connected to the WAN port on the barracuda, and then the barracuda would be connecting to the internal switch.

    The 3 machines may be 192.168.4.1, .2, .3 to the load balancer, but the load balancer itself will have its own public IP (virtual IPs). We would then direct the traffic to that public IP for it to be balanced between the three machines behind the private network, even though we could access the eth0 IPs on the same machines via the route through the public switch at the same time.

    Can this be done without problems, if not, how would you recommend changing the topology, and if so, which method of load balancing should I use and any tips to set it up?
    Attached Files Attached Files

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Vestal, NY
    Posts
    1,381
    For instance, would the Direct Server Return setup be a good option in this case?
    Last edited by John[H4Y]; 11-03-2010 at 07:11 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by John[H4Y] View Post
    For instance, would the Direct Server Return setup be a good option in this case?
    Yes. Unless you have another reason to use both interfaces and seperate switches.
    Edge 1, LLC
    http://www.edge1.net | 800.392.2349
    Cisco SMARTnet & Licensing Specialists | Datacenter/Network Design & Management Consulting | Cisco New & Certified Refurb Equipment Sales

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Vestal, NY
    Posts
    1,381
    So that should work, correct? The other reason is to isolate the load balanced connection vs a non-load balanced direct internet connection but have both available.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    428
    Direct Server Return / Local Triangulation should work no problem. Why would you want to isolate the load balanced connection vs non-load balanced? If you have multiple connections and switches it would make more sense to design it so it operates in a redundancy mode unless there is specific reasons not to.
    Edge 1, LLC
    http://www.edge1.net | 800.392.2349
    Cisco SMARTnet & Licensing Specialists | Datacenter/Network Design & Management Consulting | Cisco New & Certified Refurb Equipment Sales

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Vestal, NY
    Posts
    1,381
    We just want to keep it from going offline. If we do it this way, we should be able to point DNS at a new IP (the load balancer WAN IP) and if there is a problem, we can put it right back to the DNS round robin it is currently using between the 3 public IPs. Also, the servers are all using the internal switch/eth1 connections already for communicatoins between web servers and database servers as an example. In other words, I am trying to add the load balancer while keeping the private and public access to these machines unchanged.

    ex: server 1 before adding the load balancer has public IP of 199.199.199.1 and private IP of 192.168.4.1 - it is in production and connects to server @ 192.168.4.2 for DB activity. If I set this up with direct returns, I should be able to just plug the Barracuda LAN port into the private switch and a new WAN uplink to the WAN port, correct? Does it matter if it is not the same uplink/switch as the servers are connected to via each of their eth0 NICs?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    428
    You can avoid going offline while also having redundency. It isnt a very good design to have those two split networks just to be able to switch back and forth. I'd use both connections redundently instead of splitting them along with a DSR/Local Triangulation design which you can accomplish what what your looking to do. If you really want two seperate split networks then use regular NAT load balancing method.
    Edge 1, LLC
    http://www.edge1.net | 800.392.2349
    Cisco SMARTnet & Licensing Specialists | Datacenter/Network Design & Management Consulting | Cisco New & Certified Refurb Equipment Sales

Similar Threads

  1. Cisco CSS11501 hardware load balancer vs 2x Haproxy shared load balancers ?
    By eva2000 in forum Hosting Security and Technology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-26-2010, 07:33 PM
  2. Barracuda Load Balancer
    By Dualism in forum Hosting Security and Technology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-28-2008, 03:17 AM
  3. Barracuda Balancer
    By ti_nhatrang in forum Hosting Security and Technology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-07-2007, 06:29 AM
  4. barracuda load balancer
    By sharkman in forum Web Hosting
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-21-2007, 06:52 PM
  5. Load balancer (how, where and how much) ?
    By EmpireVPS in forum Hosting Security and Technology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-22-2006, 09:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •