Load Balancing recommendation

[BKIRK]

I’m kind of new to the forums, but I see a lot of good advice in here. This might have previously been asked, but I could not find anything. I have a question or two on load balancing of servers. I know load balancing does not mean fault tolerance, meaning if a server crashes, so does the user session, but they would be able to reconnect and start working again. The problem (and question) is that what if the master browser is the one that fails? When the user attempts to connect to the IP address or name assigned with this server the client software will not be able to connect. So if I only have two servers, one would be the master browser and the other would be the second server in the load. Also, can I create a dedicated master browser with the load balancing it and have it point to the two load balanced servers? Is there a way (like in MS Cluster Service), to create a virtual IP address to the server farm instead of just a single server? Is there something I’m missing or haven’t thought of?

Thanks for any help,
Brian

 

[DaveNamou]

You don't need to worry about the Master Browser going down, the user's will still be able to connect because the other server (by default) should be the Backup Browser.

You can create a dedicated Master Browser on a 3rd machine. You will just need to install WTS and Citrix MetaFrame on the server. This does not have to be a Server Class PC. It can be a PC that has 1 Proc, 128 RAM and only 4GB hard drive. NO High end needed.
Then you can configure the Master Browser in Citrix Server Administrator to force that server to Always be the Master Browser. You should still allow the default of two Backup Browsers.

You can create a Virtual IP where one IP is assigned to more than one server using Microsoft Load Balancing Service. But using the Citrix Load Balancing should be sufficient.

Good luck!! Dave Namou, MCSE CCEA

 

[BKIRK]

Thanks Dave for the response!

Part of the issue that I still don't know what to do is that the users access the current Citrix server (which is what we want to replace with a load balanced solution) via a web browser (not NFuse driven though), so they put the server name or IP address in their browser and click a link to the ica file to publish a desktop. Since they do not use NFuse or PN, I can not give it multiple servers addresses to browse to. So the way I thought to resolve this issue would be to create a virtual name or address that would be active even if either server went down. This way they would get routed to the server that was up. The other possibility I was thinking about was what you said and create a MF server is less likely to go down since it would not be a active server and let it direct the request to the least busy server. If I do MS Load Balance, would that take care of the virtual IP address? If I do Citrix Load Balance, would I need 3 load balancing licenses (one for unused server and two for production servers)? Can I do both load balancing for this purpose?

Thanks Again,
Brian

 

[DaveNamou]

Answer1 – You can give the users multiple addresses to query.
I’m assuming that have an ICA file published on your website for users to access. Within this file is the TcpBrowserAddress=136.17.156.143 parameter (or whatever your IP is). But you can add a second line to this file so that it looks like this…

TcpBrowserAddress=136.17.156.143
TcpBrowserAddress2=136.17.156.144
TcpBrowserAddress3=136.17.156.145
TcpBrowserAddress4=136.17.156.146

This would allow the file to query the other servers as well. The client will query the servers in the order they are listed.


Answer 2 - 3rd server
You would NOT need a load balance license for this Master Browser Server. You would NOT even need a Citrix Base License cause no users will connect to this server. As far as NT Terminal Server…that, I think, you would need a license for.

Answer 3 - MS Load Balancing
MS Load Balancing would take care of your Virtual IP problem. I’ve never set up both MS Load Balancing and Citrix Load Balancing. I’m not sure how well they would work together. One thing about MS Load Balancing is it only works with Desktop connections. Not published applications.

At this point, my recommendation is still Citrix Load Balancing only and modify the ICA file to point to the other servers as well.

There you go Kirk, Spock out...

Dave Namou, MCSE CCEA

 

[CitrixEngineer]

I don't think your second point is accurate, as far as MF 1.8 goes, Dave;

ANY server that has MF1.x or WinFrame software on it is required to be licensed. The conenctions may be pooled out, but you'll still need to pay for the base license and the LB license.

If you're using MF XP, however, this is not the case and your point is correct.

I hope this information is useful CitrixEngineer@yahoo.co.uk

 

[mjbrown]

CE is correct, the master browser, even though no users will connect to it, needs a MF as well as Load Balance Licence...
This is from the Citrix site:

Document ID: CTX118173
This solution pertains to:

MetaFrame 1.0 for Microsoft NT Server 4.0, Terminal Server
MetaFrame 1.8 for Microsoft NT Server 4.0, Terminal Server
MetaFrame 1.8 for Windows 2000

Last modified: Mon Nov 06 11:48:48 2000




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Licensing Requirements
When a dedicated master browser is allocated, that server must comply with Citrix licensing requirements.

The dedicated master browser must carry a MetaFrame base license (5 licenses for Workgroup; 15 licenses for Domain). It is recommended that these licenses be pooled.

Also, if that dedicated master browser participates in a server farm that load balances published applications, then a load balancing license must be applied as well.




Mike Brown CCA

 

[DaveNamou]

Oops, thanks for correcting me guys. I never new that! I almost got Kirk in trouble for that one.
Dave Namou, MCSE CCEA

 

[BKIRK]

What, you mean you have to license Citrix and Microsoft software? Anyway, thanks to everyone for their input...I received the hardware in today so I'm gonna mess with the suggestions and see where we go from there.

Brian