It sounds like there are 3 virtual gateways, each one has a pool of ports. The ports are being reused, and the sessions are remaining open. Is the # of ports on the proxy important? I would think so, however one of the team members responsible for the switch says the number of ports on the proxy is NOT important. There is mention of disabling the secure XL command on the firewall. To use encryption, port #443 must be open. In a message dated 11/17/2010 12:19:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
** Kathy, There are a couple of potential issues with load balancer. The first I can think of is with the "sticky bit" which sends the user to the same AR System and prevents the logging in from a different IP address issue. If you give a little more detail about the issue, those with more load balancing expertise may be able to help you. Dave ____________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kathy Morris Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 1:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: 7.6.3 Load Balancing AR Server / Mid Tier ** Hi, We are experiencing serious connection issues with 7.6.03 AR System / ITSM and Cisco. Apparently there is an issue with Load Balancing. They are using Cisco as a load balancer. Is there any documentation for load balancing with 7.6.03? I saw documents for 7.1 however we were looking for more recent info. What types of issues could cause connection issues between the load balancer and the AR Server? I thought I heard something on the list a couple of months ago about this, however I have not located the email. _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
