Buy a real LB that can do Layer 4-7. Coyote Point makes a cheap one. MS NLB only tricks the switch with a VIP and Virtual MAC. MS NLB is a hokie way of doing things. Eric _____ From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Holmes Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 4:12 PM To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isalist] Re: Network Load Balancing And Network Hardware Recomendations Hello, The switch that I am currently using is an HP ProCurve Switch Model 2824. The issue that I have had previously was one of the switch shutting down the ports due to the NLB Mac Address ?jumping around? between different ports on the switch. That problem occurred on a CISCO switch (don?t remember the exact model gbb something or other). If I understand things correctly (Note that I did say IF) there are switch configuration issues that have to be addressed. KB 193602 (posted incorrect number last time sorry) mentions one of them which is issue with port flooding and suppressing this with VLANs. My past experience using Switches with NLB on Windows NT and Windows 2000 was a train wreck. The path of least resistance was a dumb hub between the nodes and the switch that gave the switch a consistent view of the NLB cluster. That is why I am currently using Unicast With a Hub as KB193602 indicates. If I understand correctly I should be able to Mask the NLB Mac Address and after doing so connect directly to a switch as a side effect of this any request to the NLB cluster will be sent to all ports of the switch (port flood). Thus traffic will be sent to any and all machines on the switch unless you define VLANS. As another option could use another L2 switch that only deals with my NLB and have a single uplink just like my current hub has thus gaining gigabit full duplex connections or would the port flooding also affect the upstream switch. It doesn?t seem like it should. The upstream switch would see something answering on the NLB switch?s port. Will something like a Netgear GS105 work in this instance for testing purposes? It?s the Switch getting to smart for MY own good that I worry about which is why I am asking these questions. Thanks Bill _____ From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 4:07 PM To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isalist] Re: Network Load Balancing And Network Hardware Recomendations ?HP Procurve? ? what? That?s a product line, not a switch model. Also, you don?t need to use a hub; a L2 switch generally works just fine. The problem is when the switch tries to be too smart about L3 and ends up being too smart for its own good. From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Holmes Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 11:55 AM To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isalist] Network Load Balancing And Network Hardware Recomendations Hello, This is possible a little off topic. We currently use Windows Network Load Balancing for our Exchange and ISA servers. Right now to avoid problems with our network switches I have a hub between the NLB hosts and our Network Switches. This connection is therefore limited to 100MB ½ duplex connections. I have new hardware coming in that I need to use NLB on and I would like to have an optimal configuration. I have taken a look at Microsoft KB 192602 and am looking for further recommendations. Our network switches are HP Procurve. Thanks Bill All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.