Thanks Bob. Can you clearify your position on NSCM. I have experimented with this mode of operation but do not employ it. Why would the use of this policy affect load balancing at all? Before upgrading to 3.1, we would run a home-grown script to balance sessions with a combination of utadm -f and killing sessions. We would typically run this after rebooting the app servers. This script worked fine with 2.0 but now it's ineffective... Most of the sunrays appear to attach to more than 1 server producing (utsession) many "DI" in the state field.
Message: 5 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:14:12 -0400 From: Bob Doolittle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [SunRay-Users] Fail-over Group configuration questions To: SunRay-Users mailing list <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 I've seen no response to this I think? Ives, Keith-P59429 wrote: > I have 5 servers in a fail-over group; class C dedicated network; each > sharing 34 Ips; > 1 of the servers happens to have a public LAN as well for a few > remote sunrays Recently upgraded to both Trusted Solaris 2/04 and > SRSS 3.1 120879-06 > What a shame you didn't wait for SRSS 4.0 and use Solaris 10 with Trusted Extensions :-(. We had to drop support for TSol8 in this release - too many platforms. > Issues with the sunrays connecting to servers following reboots has me > questioning my configuration. I also question the uninstall/install > of the SW... /etc/opt/SUNWut and /var/opt/SUNWut are left behind... > what else isn't cleaned up properly? > The only other directory we use is /tmp/SUNWut but since that's tmpfs there should be no problem. Many of the files in /etc/opt/SUNWut are editable and as such are not cleaned up during package removal. The files in /var/opt/SUNWut are dynamic and thus don't belong to any package either. These directories can be safely removed manually after uninstallation, and it's a fair cop that we ought to clean them out from utinstall I think. > Config questions: > 1: When setting up the utadm -a <NIC>, does it matter if I have an > "auth server list" ? > Not really. > I have been operating without. If I should be using 1, would I > list only other 4 servers, or all 5 ? > I'm assuming you're referring to this dialog: > Accept as is? ([Y]/N): n > new netmask: [255.255.255.0] > Do you want to offer IP addresses for this subnet? (Y/[N]): > auth server list: 172.16.0.29 > To read auth server list from file, enter file name: > Auth server IP address (enter <CR> to end list): I always enter all the addresses I'm interested in here, including the one it already lists. You're building the AltAuth list here, which takes precedence over AuthSrvr, which was the previous value. They are not merged. That said, this isn't critical if you have so many servers, since you just need to enter enough addresses to meet your HA needs. The entire group will load balance as appropriate when the session is created. I'd be sure to use the NSCM policy so that non-card sessions get load balanced upon login, if you allow pseudo sessions at all. > 2: I use the default DHCP lease time ( 24 hr. on solaris ) Is this > good, bad, or indifferent? > That's the default I believe. I've not heard any issues regarding this. Regards, Bob Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this mail are my own, and are not necessarily shared by my employer ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ SunRay-Users mailing list [email protected] http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
