<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Issue about weightedrr on CSS 11800 in Application Networking</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/issue-about-weightedrr-on-css-11800/m-p/295374#M4569</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I have server farm that is consisted of 14 high performance servers and 6 low performance servers.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So, I changed the configuration from round robin to weightedrr (weight 4 for high performance servers and weight 3 for low performance servers).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And I also used sticky option for my server farm.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;First I added "balance weightedrr" and modified "add service" to "add service weight" in content rule.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I used 60 clients for server load balance.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But the traffic went to first 3 servers (other servers didn't get any traffic from CSS)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So, I changed "add service weight" to add service" in content rule and added "weight" in each services.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But the result of test was same.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Currently the server load balance works well after backing to round robin.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Would you have any idea for better configuration about weightedrr or others such as too small number of clients or something else?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2004 04:06:43 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>bkoo</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2004-08-27T04:06:43Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Issue about weightedrr on CSS 11800</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/issue-about-weightedrr-on-css-11800/m-p/295374#M4569</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I have server farm that is consisted of 14 high performance servers and 6 low performance servers.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So, I changed the configuration from round robin to weightedrr (weight 4 for high performance servers and weight 3 for low performance servers).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And I also used sticky option for my server farm.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;First I added "balance weightedrr" and modified "add service" to "add service weight" in content rule.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I used 60 clients for server load balance.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But the traffic went to first 3 servers (other servers didn't get any traffic from CSS)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So, I changed "add service weight" to add service" in content rule and added "weight" in each services.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But the result of test was same.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Currently the server load balance works well after backing to round robin.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Would you have any idea for better configuration about weightedrr or others such as too small number of clients or something else?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2004 04:06:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/issue-about-weightedrr-on-css-11800/m-p/295374#M4569</guid>
      <dc:creator>bkoo</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2004-08-27T04:06:43Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Issue about weightedrr on CSS 11800</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/issue-about-weightedrr-on-css-11800/m-p/295375#M4570</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;how many clients did you use ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Do you have the same issue without sticky ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Gilles.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2004 08:45:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/issue-about-weightedrr-on-css-11800/m-p/295375#M4570</guid>
      <dc:creator>Gilles Dufour</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2004-09-02T08:45:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Issue about weightedrr on CSS 11800</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/issue-about-weightedrr-on-css-11800/m-p/295376#M4571</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Here is the config that I used:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Content rule1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;  vip address x.x.x.x&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;  balance weightedrr&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;  add service server1 weight 3&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;  add service server2 wieght 2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;  add service server3 wieght 1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In this case there will a flowbased loadbalancing among the servers.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2004 17:12:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/issue-about-weightedrr-on-css-11800/m-p/295376#M4571</guid>
      <dc:creator>didyap</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2004-09-09T17:12:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

