3

I'm about to study about NLB on Windows Server 2003. It archives both of my interests now: scalability and high-availability. But I don't know about its power in production environment.

  • Is NLB a efficient solution?

    How does it implement in real-world? Is it popular?

    What are its limit?

Thank you so much for answering my questions. :)

Vimvq1987
  • 475
  • 7
  • 18

2 Answers2

4

NLB is a decently efficient solution but it has it's limits, too. IT works single data center only, so you better make sure you dont have an issue there - or multiple NLB'd clusters. NLB scalability limits are in the documentation - I thin it is around 32 computers. It is a good solution if you dont have a front end load balancer (like in the router in front). It is definitely bettter than DNS round robin which on one side is ignorant to computer utilization and on the other hand of computers down for maintenace.

NLB will NOT solve inherent scalability issues, but it will try (and do a decent job) to balance incoming connections to the different computers.

Is it popular? Not SO much. The main reason being that many high end routers have load balancing functionality already in there, and somehow people go for hardware. Is it unpopular? No. Is it a shame it is not more widely used? Yes.It is really a decent technology.

Btw., upgrade to 2008 R2 - your license covers that anyway (unless you PURCHASED licenses, then you are - in for waste as they are not usable for service providers AND more expensive than the monthly SPLA rental agreeement with Microsoft.... a web server for around 15 USD per month processor license, btw.).

TomTom
  • 50,857
  • 7
  • 52
  • 134
  • Long waited for a proper answer. +1 vote. NLB seems to be not a preferred choice, is there some solutions that do better than NLB and are used widely on Windows platform? – Vimvq1987 Mar 20 '10 at 09:26
  • Not to my knowledge. THe main issue being that this is a rare scenario to start with - not many people see the need to develop something here. – TomTom Apr 20 '12 at 05:14
0

There are many many ways to achive NLB, it's not a one size fits all and really depends on what service and application your working with.

Scaling is key to many large internet applications. You may find this talk from the facebook engineers interesting. http://fosdem.org/2010/schedule/events/scalingfacebook

It's sometimes more cost effective to use open source tools for clustering, per server licence fee's can cripple a startup. Don't even ask what a 2 million user client access licence will cost you ;-).

If you can identify where your bottlenecks are, you can concentrate on attacking these first for the greatest gains. No good scaling your front end http services, if all connections goto a overloaded and i/o bound mysql instance for example.

The Unix Janitor
  • 2,388
  • 14
  • 13
  • Licensing costs - are only relevant for people who don't know about MS SPLA licenses. If the SPLA costs crippe a startup, it should not get on the market at all. Irrelevant answer with wrong information. – TomTom Mar 20 '10 at 08:56
  • @TomTom so your saying that licences costs on Windows is the same than hosting on FOSS? Please explain. Could you explain SPLA costs to me. How much would I pay for 30,000 users, 2xms-sql server, 2xiis servers. – The Unix Janitor Mar 20 '10 at 12:10
  • Not the same, but it makes simply no difference. FOSS since long time thinks the software cost is relevant - it is maintenance and upkeep of the infrastructure and the custom developped things that mkes the cost. Windows wont add more than 2 to 3% to the total cost. – TomTom Mar 20 '10 at 13:06
  • Pricing depdns on whether it is active/active or active/passive, but if you choose rightlicenses it is maybe 200 USD per month. NORMALLY. BizSpark gives you anything pretty much for free for the first years for a system that size - we talk of I think 100 USD for three years. But even 200 USD per month is nothing if you have 3-4 people to pay, servers to acutally lease, bandwidth to pay. And no - nr. of users is irrelevant, web licensing is always per processor. – TomTom Mar 20 '10 at 13:08
  • This includes, btw., all licenses and has no commitment - you report every month what you used the month before. No upstart cost. No upgrading cost -at one point ms tells you you can now simply rent the next version. – TomTom Mar 20 '10 at 13:09
  • For a REAL startup, check http://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/ - 100 USD for 3 years, POST paid, and they do more than just give you the software for that. And even the software includes more than just hosting - it includes the IDE, everything. – TomTom Mar 20 '10 at 13:11
  • do you work for microsoft or own shares in them? – The Unix Janitor Mar 20 '10 at 15:18
  • @TomTom - I work at a small outfit, and our infrastructure is 100% FOSS. I can't even fathom the kind of overhead required to account for things like "Lets add 2 more nodes to the cluster to account for a load spike" or "Lets setup a 5-node test environment for a few months to try a different software configuration." You either have to work these licensing fees as part of the cost of doing buisness from day 1, or you use FOSS, and grow organically till your infrastructure (IT & financial) are well enough to work with non-foss software. And by that time, why bother if it all just works? – Jason Mar 20 '10 at 23:54
  • This is still not the point (sorry). The question is - when you add 2 more nodes (and then after a month report the usage), does it make a difference or not? Hm, let's see... no. The COST of licensing is pretty much STILL close to zero compared to the total cost of running business. Between the cost for a node (dual quad to jex core, decent amount of RAM, easily 4000 USD), the time to set it up and the whole infrastructure (backups, bandwidth etc.), the cost of the licenses (30 USD per month) just make significant difference. – TomTom Mar 21 '10 at 01:26
  • @TomTom - BTW, thanks for all your comments, MS licensing is one of the things I need to study in more detail. Does SPLA apply if the nodes you put the license on only host an application that you're developing? (IE, your customers use *your* application, they really arn't using the windows software directly?) Or is it more for hosting providers whose customers are putting their web site + applications on your network? – Jason Mar 21 '10 at 13:13
  • The price of licenses can go up as well as down. Who to say microsoft shares holders get a bit upset, and then decide to double their fee's. It happens. Your locked into the 1 microsoft way. I feel sorry for you. Using FOSS allows you to predict cost and hire actual humans to do work. – The Unix Janitor Mar 21 '10 at 14:35
  • well, yeah. right. MS would kill their business. – TomTom Mar 21 '10 at 15:35
  • licensing so far has been fair to me. @Jason - SPLA has lower pricing for custoemrs using your own application. It really requires you to contact a SPLA partner and go over the details. Licensing is not trivial per product, BUT: if you run a node based system, it is not complicated as the nodes are pretty similar (i.e. x times node a etc.) – TomTom Mar 21 '10 at 15:36
  • @tomtom I think calling me is an idiot is a bit unprofessional. There is no reason to make a personal attack on me, because i disagree with your choice of vendor. I use the best tool for the job. Looking through your answers, they are all microsoft product centric. I suggest you learn more about FOSS and see if there are better alternative to what you are advising. I will not be dragged into a flame war with your constant trolling. FOSS has advantages and disadvantages. Using Microsoft has advantages and disadvantages. Now please, don't throw your toys out of the pram. – The Unix Janitor Mar 21 '10 at 16:45
  • YOu may think of it unprofessional, I think it is - the truth. I do at no point argue that FOSS has not it's place if someone decides to. I jsut say that the licensing costs should not be the primary reason because they are irrelevant - unless you are an idiot, or a cheap prick who does not value your own time. I have yet to see a project OR position in which licensing cost matter. Yes, the numbers may be high - but if they end up as just around 3% of your project cost, they are not going to make a difference. – TomTom Mar 22 '10 at 04:35
  • But then, maybe, you are a student or your time is worth nothing. Maybe you do not maintain your servers and your web startup is your homepage wih 30 visitors a year, do it runs on a USD 2 per month free server. Getting SERIOUS I have to tell you that no, they dont make a difference. It is really more a strategic choice. – TomTom Mar 22 '10 at 04:36
  • @tomtom, wow, first you call me an idiot, and now cheap prick. Brilliant. Now you say I'm a student and my time is worth nothing. . – The Unix Janitor Mar 22 '10 at 10:46
  • 1
    Licensing costs are a substantial consideration even for large projects. – Warner Mar 22 '10 at 14:42