RE: FYI: Duplicate Field Names in 9.1.00 201512160229 possible - view created "OK"

[Gupta, Girish]

I think the duplicate field name would be possible only when we update field 
meta data from the database directly bypassing AR APIs.  Only a guess, but 
archgid is one tool that updates field-ids directly in database, so some 
scenario could have caused it to mis-behave causing inconsistenty that you are 
referring to below.

Thanks & Regards
Girish

From: ARSList [mailto:arslist-boun...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of LJ LongWing
Sent: 02 February 2018 12:27 AM
To: ARSList 
Subject: Re: FYI: Duplicate Field Names in 9.1.00 201512160229 possible - view 
created "OK"

well, the obvious thing is to change one to a different name and hit save, then 
try to change it back...which it won't allowI, like you, have no idea how 
they would have gotten into that situation in the first place.

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Ben Chernys 
> 
wrote:
The 9.1.04 Dev Studio does not permit a duplicate field name to be entered.  
Dev Studio is enhanced so that a red small msg is displayed saying duplicate 
field – nice improvement over only replacing your typing with what was there 
before.

I note that I tried this on a regular form.  Perhaps there are some special 
rules on a join?  No matter how (though I am curious), they do have a duplicate 
field name:

HPD:IncidentInterface

536870923

Last Resolved Date

HPD:IncidentInterface

100563

Last Resolved Date


It looks like they put it in as one field id and then decided using the BMC 
field id was better.  If they have “matching fields” or even shared workflow, 
they would still work if the BMC field was the populated one.

Interestingly, the view was created with both fields by appending “001” and 
“002”.   I do not know which is which.  I’d expect it to be in Id order but it 
could also be in when created order.

Last_Resolved_Date001

Last_Resolved_Date002


Which begs the question: will BMC add a viewname column to arfield as well?  
(It would be nice.)  How was one to expect the above two view column names from 
the field names that ARS knows about?  (ie what order?).

And how was the inclusion of two identically named fields possible?  I could 
not do it with the 8.0.0 and 9.1.04 Dev Studio.

The fact that there is code for handling duplicate fields when generating a 
view presumably does not mean that this is a new direction for schemas and 
fields – that duplicate named fields will be allowed?  Besides, the clients 
disallow it.

Any responses from BMC would be most appreciated.

Cheers
Ben


From: Ben Chernys 
[mailto:ben.cher...@softwaretoolhouse.com]
Sent: January-31-18 8:38 AM
To: 'ARSList' >
Subject: RE: FYI: Duplicate Field Names in 9.1.00 201512160229 possible

As I said, “I’m curious as to what field names were generated for the view.”
I have no idea how they got it done.  I have an older dev studio and it 
prevented that action from going to the server (as it should).Remember that 
Remedy has code for generating a field’s viewname.  There’s a couple of fields 
in ITSM that have names ending in a space for example (xxx_ in the view).  A 
field could be a reserved word in the db.
Cheers
Ben

From: ARSList [mailto:arslist-boun...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of LJ LongWing
Sent: January-31-18 8:06 AM
To: ARSList >
Subject: Re: FYI: Duplicate Field Names in 9.1.00 201512160229 possible

Ben,
I'm not sure how exactly that can happen because the 'name', assuming we are 
talking about the DB name of the field is used in the View creation, and you 
obviously can't have two columns with the same name in the DB view, so you 
can't do it in Dev Studio either...I would be curious to see a def of the form 
in questionthis hasn't been possible since I started using remedy in v 
3.2not sure how they got it done.

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:55 AM, Ben Chernys 
> 
wrote:
Hi Folks,
 Just ran into an odd issue.  A customer has created a field twice in the same 
form with the same name (but different ids).  I tried to do the same on my 
9.1.02 server using the 8.0 Developer Studio but the client prevented a 
duplicate entry into the name field.  I remember the old admin tool returning a 
duplicate field error at some point.
 I’m curious as to what field names were generated for the view.
 All workflow is keyed to field ids so it is not surprising that the Remedy 
application still functions – though I wonder which field is selected in dev 
studio.  I have downloaded the 9.1.04 clients et al and will give its dev 
studio and RDP a try if I can put in a Java it thinks is higher than 1.4 
 Alas this is mere curiosity as Meta-Update/Meta-Archive is only affected in 
that the field cache for this form is not used (a minor slow-down in 
performance when dealing 

CMDB Impact Analysis option is not working to relate the CI to the CR

[Pandi C]

Dear All,

Impact Analysis option is loading
continuously in change request (CR) relationship tab. unable to relate any
other CI from change request (CR) -> Relationship Tab -> Impact Analysis.

We need your help to address this loading issue.

AR system version is v9.03
Atrium CMDB version is v9.03

Regards,
Pandi.C
-- 
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

Re: OT: Re: Loadbalancer traffic distribution question

[LJ LongWing]

Jason,
You are correct, Jetty running on port 8008, or whatever port they are on
certainly needs it's own LB depending on the need of the client in place.
If HA is needed, LB makes sense.  Regardless of if you are talking about
Remedy Restful services or CMDB Restful services...depending on the HA
needs of the client/server architecture, LB makes a bunch of sensethe
great part about Remedy Restful services is that once you have created a
Server Group for Remedy, it's the same server, so not additional hardware :)

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Jason Miller 
wrote:

> I'll also use this thread as an opportunity for a new discussion related
> to load balancing.
>
> Is anybody aware of any docs that pertain to load balancing Jetty on AR
> Server? The REST API has been hosed here for a few years but that wasn't
> user-facing (but should be able to setup redundancy). The new CMDB UI is
> also using Jetty and this is user-facing (albeit a small user base) so it
> is time to start thinking about LB for Jetty.
>
> It might be straightforward without any special considerations however it
> would be very nice to have this setup actually documented for AR
> Server/Jetty.
>
> Jason
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Randeep Atwal 
> wrote:
>
>> From the Mid-Tier side, you also might want to review your setttings as
>> described here to work with the load balancer settings:
>>
>> https://docs.bmc.com/docs/display/public/ars81/Configuring+
>> the+mid+tier+connection+pool
>>
>> https://docs.bmc.com/docs/brid91/en/configuring-the-mid-tier
>> -connection-pool-610403150.html
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Aspari Sunil Kumar 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There isn't much can be done in mid tier.this is purely LB team need to
>>> analyse what is going wrong . Need to sit with them and see why all the
>>> connections are going to one server in reality with the help of logs.. we
>>> had strange problem recently that on 2 AR servers we used to see same set
>>> of users .. we fixed this after lot of analysis with LB team
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 1, 2018 7:09 PM, "LJ LongWing"  wrote:
>>>
>>> I've always preferred to use least connections personally, but from what
>>> I've read of the docs they recommend round robinbut round robin doesn't
>>> explain how your LB would be putting everyone on one node...it should
>>> literally go 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3 for new connections, and as you discussed,
>>> keep you on your current server if you are within the timeout, but you
>>> should have fairly even load across nodesdo they keep logs of the
>>> monitor activity so you can review if the monitor is reporting a server as
>>> down during specified periods?  What monitor style are you using, ping,
>>> tcpip port, something else?
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hey LJ and thank you for the prompt reply.

 Talked to them already. We’re using round robin. I’m not an expert on
 LB but my understanding was that we would have about an equal amount of
 users on all AR Servers using it.

 The guy explained that once you connect there is a time out of 180
 seconds. If you do something within the 180 seconds you will end up on the
 same server. If you don’t they will balance. Sounds plausible. Any yet
 what’s the likelihood that people then will be balanced on the second box
 and not the third.

 Does anyone there use round robin as well? How do your users get
 distributed? What are you Mid Tier settings, connection settings in
 particular?


 Thomas



 On Feb 1, 2018, at 4:49 PM, LJ LongWing  wrote:

 Thomas,
 You'll need to work with the LB team to identify what distribution
 method they are usingcommon options are 'round robin' in which it just
 simply points everything at each server in turn, 'least connections' where
 it tries to analyze how many are 'currently' connected to each node and
 send the traffic to the one with the least current loadyou'll also want
 to check and verify that the monitor that you are using to determine if a
 node is online or not is functioning properly because if the LB monitor
 says a node is down, it obviously won't send any traffic to it...but if
 that monitor is faulty, it might be up and running but not reporting as
 online and can cause the scenario you described...

 On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz 
 wrote:

> Hi Listers,
>
> we got a physical load balancer before the Mid-Tier servers and a
> logical load balancer between the Mid Tier and our AR Servers.
>
> We noticed that on some days all the users land on only one AR Server.
> On other days two. What’s the reason behind it? What do we need to
> configure and 

Re: Loadbalancer traffic distribution question

[LJ LongWing]

But you can see in the screenshot that the maximum for each is in the 30's,
so from that it seems to me that the LB is able to recognize unique
individuals coming across and not treating the Mid-Tier server as a whole
as a single userbut I do agree with you that there is 0 reason to have
the 3 min 'sticky'that will do nothing but cause sticking, which is
unnecessary for the ARServer, and potentially detrimental at the same time.

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Misi Mladoniczky  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> So if you have say 4 mid-tiers and 4 remedy-servers and 100 users.
>
> The first load balancer will dirstribute the 100 users to something like
> 25 per mid-tier server.
>
> The load balancer between mid-tiers and the remedy-servers will see only 4
> "users", which is the 4 mid-tiers. It is not inpossible that these 4 users
> might end up with 1 or 2 remedy-servers only if you have a 180 second
> timeout. If you have 100 real users chatting there will seldom be a 180
> second silence on any one mid-tier server, which is what would be required
> for the mid-tier server to be directed at a new server.
>
> Why not do a complete round-robin thing without any 180 second timeout?
>
> Best Regards - Misi, RRR AB, http://www.rrr.se (ARSList MVP 2011)
>
> Ask the Remedy Licensing Experts (Best R.O.I. Award at WWRUG10/11/12/13)
> * RRR|License - Not enough Remedy licenses? Save money by optimizing.
> * RRR|Log - Performance issues or elusive bugs? Analyze your Remedy logs
> Find these products, and many free tools and utilities, at http://rrr.se
>
>
>
>
>
> February 1, 2018 5:03 PM, "Thomas Miskiewicz"  <%22thomas%20miskiewicz%22%20%3ctmisk...@gmail.com%3E>> wrote:
>
> Hey LJ and thank you for the prompt reply.
> Talked to them already. We’re using round robin. I’m not an expert on LB
> but my understanding was that we would have about an equal amount of users
> on all AR Servers using it.
> The guy explained that once you connect there is a time out of 180
> seconds. If you do something within the 180 seconds you will end up on the
> same server. If you don’t they will balance. Sounds plausible. Any yet
> what’s the likelihood that people then will be balanced on the second box
> and not the third.
> Does anyone there use round robin as well? How do your users get
> distributed? What are you Mid Tier settings, connection settings in
> particular?
> Thomas
>
>
> On Feb 1, 2018, at 4:49 PM, LJ LongWing  wrote:
> Thomas,
> You'll need to work with the LB team to identify what distribution method
> they are usingcommon options are 'round robin' in which it just simply
> points everything at each server in turn, 'least connections' where it
> tries to analyze how many are 'currently' connected to each node and send
> the traffic to the one with the least current loadyou'll also want to
> check and verify that the monitor that you are using to determine if a node
> is online or not is functioning properly because if the LB monitor says a
> node is down, it obviously won't send any traffic to it...but if that
> monitor is faulty, it might be up and running but not reporting as online
> and can cause the scenario you described...
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz 
> wrote:
>
> Hi Listers,
>
> we got a physical load balancer before the Mid-Tier servers and a logical
> load balancer between the Mid Tier and our AR Servers.
>
> We noticed that on some days all the users land on only one AR Server. On
> other days two. What’s the reason behind it? What do we need to configure
> and to enforce equal distribution?
>
>
> Thomas
> --
> ARSList mailing list
> ARSList@arslist.org
> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>
> --
> ARSList mailing list
> ARSList@arslist.org
> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>
>
> --
> ARSList mailing list
> ARSList@arslist.org
> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>
>
-- 
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

Re: FYI: Duplicate Field Names in 9.1.00 201512160229 possible - view created "OK"

[LJ LongWing]

well, the obvious thing is to change one to a different name and hit save,
then try to change it back...which it won't allowI, like you, have no
idea how they would have gotten into that situation in the first place.

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Ben Chernys <
ben.cher...@softwaretoolhouse.com> wrote:

> The 9.1.04 Dev Studio does *not* permit a duplicate field name to be
> entered.  Dev Studio is enhanced so that a red small msg is displayed
> saying duplicate field – nice improvement over only replacing your typing
> with what was there before.
>
>
>
> I note that I tried this on a regular form.  Perhaps there are some
> special rules on a join?  No matter how (though I am curious), they do have
> a duplicate field name:
>
>
>
> HPD:IncidentInterface
>
> 536870923
>
> Last Resolved Date
>
> HPD:IncidentInterface
>
> 100563
>
> Last Resolved Date
>
>
>
> It looks like they put it in as one field id and then decided using the
> BMC field id was better.  If they have “matching fields” or even shared
> workflow, they would still work if the BMC field was the populated one.
>
>
>
> Interestingly, the *view was created *with both fields by appending “001”
> and “002”.   I do not know which is which.  I’d expect it to be in Id order
> but it could also be in when created order.
>
>
>
> Last_Resolved_Date001
>
> Last_Resolved_Date002
>
>
>
> Which begs the question: will BMC add a viewname column to arfield as
> well?  (It would be nice.)  How was one to expect the above two view column
> names from the field names that ARS knows about?  (ie what order?).
>
>
>
> And how was the inclusion of two identically named fields possible?  I
> could not do it with the 8.0.0 and 9.1.04 Dev Studio.
>
>
>
> The fact that there is code for handling duplicate fields when generating
> a view presumably does not mean that this is a new direction for schemas
> and fields – that duplicate named fields will be allowed?  Besides, the
> clients disallow it.
>
>
>
> Any responses from BMC would be most appreciated.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Ben
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ben Chernys [mailto:ben.cher...@softwaretoolhouse.com]
> *Sent:* January-31-18 8:38 AM
> *To:* 'ARSList' 
> *Subject:* RE: FYI: Duplicate Field Names in 9.1.00 201512160229 possible
>
>
>
> As I said, “I’m curious as to what field names were generated for the
> view.”
>
> I have no idea how they got it done.  I have an older dev studio and it
> prevented that action from going to the server (as it should).Remember
> that Remedy has code for generating a field’s viewname.  There’s a couple
> of fields in ITSM that have names ending in a space for example (xxx_ in
> the view).  A field could be a reserved word in the db.
>
> Cheers
> Ben
>
>
>
> *From:* ARSList [mailto:arslist-boun...@arslist.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *LJ LongWing
> *Sent:* January-31-18 8:06 AM
> *To:* ARSList 
> *Subject:* Re: FYI: Duplicate Field Names in 9.1.00 201512160229 possible
>
>
>
> Ben,
>
> I'm not sure how exactly that can happen because the 'name', assuming we
> are talking about the DB name of the field is used in the View creation,
> and you obviously can't have two columns with the same name in the DB view,
> so you can't do it in Dev Studio either...I would be curious to see a def
> of the form in questionthis hasn't been possible since I started using
> remedy in v 3.2not sure how they got it done.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:55 AM, Ben Chernys  softwaretoolhouse.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
>  Just ran into an odd issue.  A customer has created a field twice in the
> same form with the same name (but different ids).  I tried to do the same
> on my 9.1.02 server using the 8.0 Developer Studio but the client prevented
> a duplicate entry into the name field.  I remember the old admin tool
> returning a duplicate field error at some point.
>
>  I’m curious as to what field names were generated for the view.
>
>  All workflow is keyed to field ids so it is not surprising that the
> Remedy application still functions – though I wonder which field is
> selected in dev studio.  I have downloaded the 9.1.04 clients et al and
> will give its dev studio and RDP a try if I can put in a Java it thinks is
> higher than 1.4 
>
>  Alas this is mere curiosity as Meta-Update/Meta-Archive is only affected
> in that the field cache for this form is not used (a minor slow-down in
> performance when dealing with this form).
>
>  This is not a question; it just surprised me.
>
>  Cheers,
>
> Ben Chernys
> Senior Software Architect
> [image: logoSthInc-sm]
>
> Canada / Deutschland
> Mobile:+49 171 380 2329 <+49%20171%203802329>   GMT - 7 + [ DST ]
>
> Mobile +1 403  554 0887 <(403)%20554-0887>
> Email:   Ben.Chernys_AT_softwaretoolhouse.com
> Web: www.softwaretoolhouse.com
>
> We are a BMC Technology Alliance Partner
>
>
>
>
>
> Check out Software Tool House's free Diary Editor and our  

RE: FYI: Duplicate Field Names in 9.1.00 201512160229 possible - view created "OK"

[Ben Chernys]

The 9.1.04 Dev Studio does not permit a duplicate field name to be entered.  
Dev Studio is enhanced so that a red small msg is displayed saying duplicate 
field – nice improvement over only replacing your typing with what was there 
before.

 

I note that I tried this on a regular form.  Perhaps there are some special 
rules on a join?  No matter how (though I am curious), they do have a duplicate 
field name:

 


HPD:IncidentInterface

536870923

Last Resolved Date


HPD:IncidentInterface

100563

Last Resolved Date

 

It looks like they put it in as one field id and then decided using the BMC 
field id was better.  If they have “matching fields” or even shared workflow, 
they would still work if the BMC field was the populated one.

 

Interestingly, the view was created with both fields by appending “001” and 
“002”.   I do not know which is which.  I’d expect it to be in Id order but it 
could also be in when created order.

 


Last_Resolved_Date001


Last_Resolved_Date002

 

Which begs the question: will BMC add a viewname column to arfield as well?  
(It would be nice.)  How was one to expect the above two view column names from 
the field names that ARS knows about?  (ie what order?).

 

And how was the inclusion of two identically named fields possible?  I could 
not do it with the 8.0.0 and 9.1.04 Dev Studio.  

 

The fact that there is code for handling duplicate fields when generating a 
view presumably does not mean that this is a new direction for schemas and 
fields – that duplicate named fields will be allowed?  Besides, the clients 
disallow it.  

 

Any responses from BMC would be most appreciated.

 

Cheers

Ben

 

 

From: Ben Chernys [mailto:ben.cher...@softwaretoolhouse.com] 
Sent: January-31-18 8:38 AM
To: 'ARSList' 
Subject: RE: FYI: Duplicate Field Names in 9.1.00 201512160229 possible

 

As I said, “I’m curious as to what field names were generated for the view.”  

I have no idea how they got it done.  I have an older dev studio and it 
prevented that action from going to the server (as it should).Remember that 
Remedy has code for generating a field’s viewname.  There’s a couple of fields 
in ITSM that have names ending in a space for example (xxx_ in the view).  A 
field could be a reserved word in the db.

Cheers
Ben

 

From: ARSList [mailto:arslist-boun...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of LJ LongWing
Sent: January-31-18 8:06 AM
To: ARSList  >
Subject: Re: FYI: Duplicate Field Names in 9.1.00 201512160229 possible

 

Ben,

I'm not sure how exactly that can happen because the 'name', assuming we are 
talking about the DB name of the field is used in the View creation, and you 
obviously can't have two columns with the same name in the DB view, so you 
can't do it in Dev Studio either...I would be curious to see a def of the form 
in questionthis hasn't been possible since I started using remedy in v 
3.2not sure how they got it done.

 

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:55 AM, Ben Chernys  > wrote:

Hi Folks,

 Just ran into an odd issue.  A customer has created a field twice in the same 
form with the same name (but different ids).  I tried to do the same on my 
9.1.02 server using the 8.0 Developer Studio but the client prevented a 
duplicate entry into the name field.  I remember the old admin tool returning a 
duplicate field error at some point.

 I’m curious as to what field names were generated for the view.

 All workflow is keyed to field ids so it is not surprising that the Remedy 
application still functions – though I wonder which field is selected in dev 
studio.  I have downloaded the 9.1.04 clients et al and will give its dev 
studio and RDP a try if I can put in a Java it thinks is higher than 1.4 

 Alas this is mere curiosity as Meta-Update/Meta-Archive is only affected in 
that the field cache for this form is not used (a minor slow-down in 
performance when dealing with this form).

 This is not a question; it just surprised me.


 Cheers,

Ben Chernys
Senior Software Architect
  

Canada / Deutschland
Mobile:+49 171 380 2329 GMT - 7 + [ DST ]

Mobile +1 403    554 0887
Email:   Ben.Chernys_AT_softwaretoolhouse.com 
 
Web:   www.softwaretoolhouse.com

We are a BMC Technology Alliance Partner

 

 

Check out Software Tool House's free Diary Editor and our  Freebies Section for 
ITSM Forms and Fields spreadsheet.

Meta-Update  , our 
premium ARS Data tool, lets you automate your imports, migrations, in no time 
at all, without programming, without staging forms, without merge workflow. 

 

Meta-Archive   
does ITSM Archiving 

Re: Loadbalancer traffic distribution question

[Misi Mladoniczky]

Hi,

So if you have say 4 mid-tiers and 4 remedy-servers and 100 users.

The first load balancer will dirstribute the 100 users to something like 25 per 
mid-tier server.

The load balancer between mid-tiers and the remedy-servers will see only 4 
"users", which is the 4 mid-tiers. It is not inpossible that these 4 users 
might end up with 1 or 2 remedy-servers only if you have a 180 second timeout. 
If you have 100 real users chatting there will seldom be a 180 second silence 
on any one mid-tier server, which is what would be required for the mid-tier 
server to be directed at a new server.

Why not do a complete round-robin thing without any 180 second timeout?

Best Regards - Misi, RRR AB, http://www.rrr.se (http://www.rrr.se) (ARSList MVP 
2011)

Ask the Remedy Licensing Experts (Best R.O.I. Award at WWRUG10/11/12/13)
* RRR|License - Not enough Remedy licenses? Save money by optimizing.
* RRR|Log - Performance issues or elusive bugs? Analyze your Remedy logs
Find these products, and many free tools and utilities, at http://rrr.se 
(http://rrr.se)
February 1, 2018 5:03 PM, "Thomas Miskiewicz"  wrote:
Hey LJ and thank you for the prompt reply.
Talked to them already. We’re using round robin. I’m not an expert on LB but my 
understanding was that we would have about an equal amount of users on all AR 
Servers using it. 
The guy explained that once you connect there is a time out of 180 seconds. If 
you do something within the 180 seconds you will end up on the same server. If 
you don’t they will balance. Sounds plausible. Any yet what’s the likelihood 
that people then will be balanced on the second box and not the third. 
Does anyone there use round robin as well? How do your users get distributed? 
What are you Mid Tier settings, connection settings in particular? 
Thomas 
On Feb 1, 2018, at 4:49 PM, LJ LongWing  wrote: 
 Thomas,
You'll need to work with the LB team to identify what distribution method they 
are usingcommon options are 'round robin' in which it just simply points 
everything at each server in turn, 'least connections' where it tries to 
analyze how many are 'currently' connected to each node and send the traffic to 
the one with the least current loadyou'll also want to check and verify 
that the monitor that you are using to determine if a node is online or not is 
functioning properly because if the LB monitor says a node is down, it 
obviously won't send any traffic to it...but if that monitor is faulty, it 
might be up and running but not reporting as online and can cause the scenario 
you described...  
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz  wrote:Hi Listers,

we got a physical load balancer before the Mid-Tier servers and a logical load 
balancer between the Mid Tier and our AR Servers.

We noticed that on some days all the users land on only one AR Server. On other 
days two. What’s the reason behind it? What do we need to configure and to 
enforce equal distribution?
Thomas
--
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org (mailto:ARSList@arslist.org)
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist 
(https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist)   --
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org (mailto:ARSList@arslist.org)
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist 
(https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist)
-- 
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

AW: Loadbalancer traffic distribution question

[Conny.Martin]

Thomas,

Connection != User

You’re talking about technical users. Maybe some interfaces, which uses the 
same technical user and therefore you’ll see that many connections.
You should be able to see (without the help of the LB Guys), how many 
connections are directed to each backend by using netstat.

KR Conny

Von: ARSList [mailto:arslist-boun...@arslist.org] Im Auftrag von Thomas 
Miskiewicz
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. Februar 2018 18:17
An: ARSList 
Betreff: Re: Loadbalancer traffic distribution question

They don’t have logging running because of the massive data load. But the LB 
guy sent me the attached screenshot saying that it shows that all three nodes 
get an equal amount of requests.

If they really do, the I wonder why on one of the nodes I only see 2, 3 users 
and and on the others an equal amount. Those 3 users are BTW AR Admin and two 
technical users. Wired. Also speaking of amount of users I check the license 
usage. Not aware of any other way checking. Are you?
[cid:image001.jpg@01D39B8A.F3B369D0]


On Feb 1, 2018, at 5:07 PM, LJ LongWing 
> wrote:

I've always preferred to use least connections personally, but from what I've 
read of the docs they recommend round robinbut round robin doesn't explain 
how your LB would be putting everyone on one node...it should literally go 1, 
2, 3, 1, 2, 3 for new connections, and as you discussed, keep you on your 
current server if you are within the timeout, but you should have fairly even 
load across nodesdo they keep logs of the monitor activity so you can 
review if the monitor is reporting a server as down during specified periods?  
What monitor style are you using, ping, tcpip port, something else?

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz 
> wrote:
Hey LJ and thank you for the prompt reply.

Talked to them already. We’re using round robin. I’m not an expert on LB but my 
understanding was that we would have about an equal amount of users on all AR 
Servers using it.

The guy explained that once you connect there is a time out of 180 seconds. If 
you do something within the 180 seconds you will end up on the same server. If 
you don’t they will balance. Sounds plausible. Any yet what’s the likelihood 
that people then will be balanced on the second box and not the third.

Does anyone there use round robin as well? How do your users get distributed? 
What are you Mid Tier settings, connection settings in particular?


Thomas




On Feb 1, 2018, at 4:49 PM, LJ LongWing 
> wrote:

Thomas,
You'll need to work with the LB team to identify what distribution method they 
are usingcommon options are 'round robin' in which it just simply points 
everything at each server in turn, 'least connections' where it tries to 
analyze how many are 'currently' connected to each node and send the traffic to 
the one with the least current loadyou'll also want to check and verify 
that the monitor that you are using to determine if a node is online or not is 
functioning properly because if the LB monitor says a node is down, it 
obviously won't send any traffic to it...but if that monitor is faulty, it 
might be up and running but not reporting as online and can cause the scenario 
you described...

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz 
> wrote:
Hi Listers,

we got a physical load balancer before the Mid-Tier servers and a logical load 
balancer between the Mid Tier and our AR Servers.

We noticed that on some days all the users land on only one AR Server. On other 
days two. What’s the reason behind it? What do we need to configure and to 
enforce equal distribution?


Thomas
--
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

--
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist


--
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

--
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

-- 
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

Re: Loadbalancer traffic distribution question

[LJ LongWing]

Node 3 seems to be used 50% more than node 1, but agreed that everything
seems like it's getting traffic

You still haven't identified what sort of monitor is in use, and if node 1
goes down/offline at any point...I'll give you a scenario

all 3 getting normal load, but node 1 goes offline, either actually, or the
lb things so, either way, it'll redirect all of 1's traffic over to
2/31 comes back online, but because of the round robin and the 3 min
'sticky' process, only every 3rd new user would be balanced over to node 1
and all existing users, as long as they use the system at least every 3
min's would stay on the rebalanced node they were put on when 1 went
down...that's a feasible scenario in my book but hard to prove out
without logs, which you don't have.

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz 
wrote:

> They don’t have logging running because of the massive data load. But the
> LB guy sent me the attached screenshot saying that it shows that all three
> nodes get an equal amount of requests.
>
> If they really do, the I wonder why on one of the nodes I only see 2, 3
> users and and on the others an equal amount. Those 3 users are BTW AR Admin
> and two technical users. Wired. Also speaking of amount of users I check
> the license usage. Not aware of any other way checking. Are you?
>
>
> On Feb 1, 2018, at 5:07 PM, LJ LongWing  wrote:
>
> I've always preferred to use least connections personally, but from what
> I've read of the docs they recommend round robinbut round robin doesn't
> explain how your LB would be putting everyone on one node...it should
> literally go 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3 for new connections, and as you discussed,
> keep you on your current server if you are within the timeout, but you
> should have fairly even load across nodesdo they keep logs of the
> monitor activity so you can review if the monitor is reporting a server as
> down during specified periods?  What monitor style are you using, ping,
> tcpip port, something else?
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz 
> wrote:
>
>> Hey LJ and thank you for the prompt reply.
>>
>> Talked to them already. We’re using round robin. I’m not an expert on LB
>> but my understanding was that we would have about an equal amount of users
>> on all AR Servers using it.
>>
>> The guy explained that once you connect there is a time out of 180
>> seconds. If you do something within the 180 seconds you will end up on the
>> same server. If you don’t they will balance. Sounds plausible. Any yet
>> what’s the likelihood that people then will be balanced on the second box
>> and not the third.
>>
>> Does anyone there use round robin as well? How do your users get
>> distributed? What are you Mid Tier settings, connection settings in
>> particular?
>>
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 1, 2018, at 4:49 PM, LJ LongWing  wrote:
>>
>> Thomas,
>> You'll need to work with the LB team to identify what distribution method
>> they are usingcommon options are 'round robin' in which it just simply
>> points everything at each server in turn, 'least connections' where it
>> tries to analyze how many are 'currently' connected to each node and send
>> the traffic to the one with the least current loadyou'll also want to
>> check and verify that the monitor that you are using to determine if a node
>> is online or not is functioning properly because if the LB monitor says a
>> node is down, it obviously won't send any traffic to it...but if that
>> monitor is faulty, it might be up and running but not reporting as online
>> and can cause the scenario you described...
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Listers,
>>>
>>> we got a physical load balancer before the Mid-Tier servers and a
>>> logical load balancer between the Mid Tier and our AR Servers.
>>>
>>> We noticed that on some days all the users land on only one AR Server.
>>> On other days two. What’s the reason behind it? What do we need to
>>> configure and to enforce equal distribution?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>> --
>>> ARSList mailing list
>>> ARSList@arslist.org
>>> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ARSList mailing list
>> ARSList@arslist.org
>> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ARSList mailing list
>> ARSList@arslist.org
>> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>>
>>
> --
> ARSList mailing list
> ARSList@arslist.org
> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>
>
>
> --
> ARSList mailing list
> ARSList@arslist.org
> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>
>
-- 
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

OT: Re: Loadbalancer traffic distribution question

[Jason Miller]

I'll also use this thread as an opportunity for a new discussion related to
load balancing.

Is anybody aware of any docs that pertain to load balancing Jetty on AR
Server? The REST API has been hosed here for a few years but that wasn't
user-facing (but should be able to setup redundancy). The new CMDB UI is
also using Jetty and this is user-facing (albeit a small user base) so it
is time to start thinking about LB for Jetty.

It might be straightforward without any special considerations however it
would be very nice to have this setup actually documented for AR
Server/Jetty.

Jason

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Randeep Atwal  wrote:

> From the Mid-Tier side, you also might want to review your setttings as
> described here to work with the load balancer settings:
>
> https://docs.bmc.com/docs/display/public/ars81/Configuring+the+mid+tier+
> connection+pool
>
> https://docs.bmc.com/docs/brid91/en/configuring-the-mid-
> tier-connection-pool-610403150.html
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Aspari Sunil Kumar 
> wrote:
>
>> There isn't much can be done in mid tier.this is purely LB team need to
>> analyse what is going wrong . Need to sit with them and see why all the
>> connections are going to one server in reality with the help of logs.. we
>> had strange problem recently that on 2 AR servers we used to see same set
>> of users .. we fixed this after lot of analysis with LB team
>>
>>
>> On Feb 1, 2018 7:09 PM, "LJ LongWing"  wrote:
>>
>> I've always preferred to use least connections personally, but from what
>> I've read of the docs they recommend round robinbut round robin doesn't
>> explain how your LB would be putting everyone on one node...it should
>> literally go 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3 for new connections, and as you discussed,
>> keep you on your current server if you are within the timeout, but you
>> should have fairly even load across nodesdo they keep logs of the
>> monitor activity so you can review if the monitor is reporting a server as
>> down during specified periods?  What monitor style are you using, ping,
>> tcpip port, something else?
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey LJ and thank you for the prompt reply.
>>>
>>> Talked to them already. We’re using round robin. I’m not an expert on LB
>>> but my understanding was that we would have about an equal amount of users
>>> on all AR Servers using it.
>>>
>>> The guy explained that once you connect there is a time out of 180
>>> seconds. If you do something within the 180 seconds you will end up on the
>>> same server. If you don’t they will balance. Sounds plausible. Any yet
>>> what’s the likelihood that people then will be balanced on the second box
>>> and not the third.
>>>
>>> Does anyone there use round robin as well? How do your users get
>>> distributed? What are you Mid Tier settings, connection settings in
>>> particular?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 1, 2018, at 4:49 PM, LJ LongWing  wrote:
>>>
>>> Thomas,
>>> You'll need to work with the LB team to identify what distribution
>>> method they are usingcommon options are 'round robin' in which it just
>>> simply points everything at each server in turn, 'least connections' where
>>> it tries to analyze how many are 'currently' connected to each node and
>>> send the traffic to the one with the least current loadyou'll also want
>>> to check and verify that the monitor that you are using to determine if a
>>> node is online or not is functioning properly because if the LB monitor
>>> says a node is down, it obviously won't send any traffic to it...but if
>>> that monitor is faulty, it might be up and running but not reporting as
>>> online and can cause the scenario you described...
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Listers,

 we got a physical load balancer before the Mid-Tier servers and a
 logical load balancer between the Mid Tier and our AR Servers.

 We noticed that on some days all the users land on only one AR Server.
 On other days two. What’s the reason behind it? What do we need to
 configure and to enforce equal distribution?


 Thomas
 --
 ARSList mailing list
 ARSList@arslist.org
 https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

>>>
>>> --
>>> ARSList mailing list
>>> ARSList@arslist.org
>>> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ARSList mailing list
>>> ARSList@arslist.org
>>> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ARSList mailing list
>> ARSList@arslist.org
>> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ARSList mailing list
>> ARSList@arslist.org
>> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>>
>>
>
> --
> ARSList mailing list
> ARSList@arslist.org
> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

Re: Loadbalancer traffic distribution question

[Thomas Miskiewicz]

They don’t have logging running because of the massive data load. But the LB 
guy sent me the attached screenshot saying that it shows that all three nodes 
get an equal amount of requests.

If they really do, the I wonder why on one of the nodes I only see 2, 3 users 
and and on the others an equal amount. Those 3 users are BTW AR Admin and two 
technical users. Wired. Also speaking of amount of users I check the license 
usage. Not aware of any other way checking. Are you?


> On Feb 1, 2018, at 5:07 PM, LJ LongWing  wrote:
> 
> I've always preferred to use least connections personally, but from what I've 
> read of the docs they recommend round robinbut round robin doesn't 
> explain how your LB would be putting everyone on one node...it should 
> literally go 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3 for new connections, and as you discussed, keep 
> you on your current server if you are within the timeout, but you should have 
> fairly even load across nodesdo they keep logs of the monitor activity so 
> you can review if the monitor is reporting a server as down during specified 
> periods?  What monitor style are you using, ping, tcpip port, something else?
> 
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz  > wrote:
> Hey LJ and thank you for the prompt reply.
> 
> Talked to them already. We’re using round robin. I’m not an expert on LB but 
> my understanding was that we would have about an equal amount of users on all 
> AR Servers using it.
> 
> The guy explained that once you connect there is a time out of 180 seconds. 
> If you do something within the 180 seconds you will end up on the same 
> server. If you don’t they will balance. Sounds plausible. Any yet what’s the 
> likelihood that people then will be balanced on the second box and not the 
> third.
> 
> Does anyone there use round robin as well? How do your users get distributed? 
> What are you Mid Tier settings, connection settings in particular?
> 
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 1, 2018, at 4:49 PM, LJ LongWing > > wrote:
>> 
>> Thomas,
>> You'll need to work with the LB team to identify what distribution method 
>> they are usingcommon options are 'round robin' in which it just simply 
>> points everything at each server in turn, 'least connections' where it tries 
>> to analyze how many are 'currently' connected to each node and send the 
>> traffic to the one with the least current loadyou'll also want to check 
>> and verify that the monitor that you are using to determine if a node is 
>> online or not is functioning properly because if the LB monitor says a node 
>> is down, it obviously won't send any traffic to it...but if that monitor is 
>> faulty, it might be up and running but not reporting as online and can cause 
>> the scenario you described...
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz > > wrote:
>> Hi Listers,
>> 
>> we got a physical load balancer before the Mid-Tier servers and a logical 
>> load balancer between the Mid Tier and our AR Servers.
>> 
>> We noticed that on some days all the users land on only one AR Server. On 
>> other days two. What’s the reason behind it? What do we need to configure 
>> and to enforce equal distribution?
>> 
>> 
>> Thomas
>> --
>> ARSList mailing list
>> ARSList@arslist.org 
>> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> ARSList mailing list
>> ARSList@arslist.org 
>> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist 
>> 
> 
> 
> --
> ARSList mailing list
> ARSList@arslist.org 
> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ARSList mailing list
> ARSList@arslist.org
> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

-- 
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

Re: Loadbalancer traffic distribution question

[LJ LongWing]

No, that's gonna be your Mid-Tier LB that's doing that...maybe not the LB
itself, but the login is most certainly at the MT level, not the app level.

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Kevin M Candelaria 
wrote:

>
>
> While on this subject, and I apologize for the hijack.
>
>
>
> We currently have our midtiers load balanced as well as our apptiers.
>
> The apptiers and midtier load balancing uses sticky bit.
>
>
>
> If we do not close our browsers and try to log on after sessions expire we
> get dumped into the midtier AR authentication page instead of the SAML
> redirect until we clear cache.
>
>
>
> Perhaps a problem with apptier load balancing?
>
>
> --
> *From:* ARSList  on behalf of Randeep Atwal <
> ratwals...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 1, 2018 11:43 AM
> *To:* ARSList
> *Subject:* Re: Loadbalancer traffic distribution question
>
> From the Mid-Tier side, you also might want to review your setttings as
> described here to work with the load balancer settings:
>
> https://docs.bmc.com/docs/display/public/ars81/Configuring+the+mid+tier+
> connection+pool
>
> https://docs.bmc.com/docs/brid91/en/configuring-the-mid-
> tier-connection-pool-610403150.html
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Aspari Sunil Kumar 
> wrote:
>
>> There isn't much can be done in mid tier.this is purely LB team need to
>> analyse what is going wrong . Need to sit with them and see why all the
>> connections are going to one server in reality with the help of logs.. we
>> had strange problem recently that on 2 AR servers we used to see same set
>> of users .. we fixed this after lot of analysis with LB team
>>
>>
>> On Feb 1, 2018 7:09 PM, "LJ LongWing"  wrote:
>>
>> I've always preferred to use least connections personally, but from what
>> I've read of the docs they recommend round robinbut round robin doesn't
>> explain how your LB would be putting everyone on one node...it should
>> literally go 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3 for new connections, and as you discussed,
>> keep you on your current server if you are within the timeout, but you
>> should have fairly even load across nodesdo they keep logs of the
>> monitor activity so you can review if the monitor is reporting a server as
>> down during specified periods?  What monitor style are you using, ping,
>> tcpip port, something else?
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey LJ and thank you for the prompt reply.
>>>
>>> Talked to them already. We’re using round robin. I’m not an expert on LB
>>> but my understanding was that we would have about an equal amount of users
>>> on all AR Servers using it.
>>>
>>> The guy explained that once you connect there is a time out of 180
>>> seconds. If you do something within the 180 seconds you will end up on the
>>> same server. If you don’t they will balance. Sounds plausible. Any yet
>>> what’s the likelihood that people then will be balanced on the second box
>>> and not the third.
>>>
>>> Does anyone there use round robin as well? How do your users get
>>> distributed? What are you Mid Tier settings, connection settings in
>>> particular?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 1, 2018, at 4:49 PM, LJ LongWing  wrote:
>>>
>>> Thomas,
>>> You'll need to work with the LB team to identify what distribution
>>> method they are usingcommon options are 'round robin' in which it just
>>> simply points everything at each server in turn, 'least connections' where
>>> it tries to analyze how many are 'currently' connected to each node and
>>> send the traffic to the one with the least current loadyou'll also want
>>> to check and verify that the monitor that you are using to determine if a
>>> node is online or not is functioning properly because if the LB monitor
>>> says a node is down, it obviously won't send any traffic to it...but if
>>> that monitor is faulty, it might be up and running but not reporting as
>>> online and can cause the scenario you described...
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Listers,

 we got a physical load balancer before the Mid-Tier servers and a
 logical load balancer between the Mid Tier and our AR Servers.

 We noticed that on some days all the users land on only one AR Server.
 On other days two. What’s the reason behind it? What do we need to
 configure and to enforce equal distribution?


 Thomas
 --
 ARSList mailing list
 ARSList@arslist.org
 https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

>>>
>>> --
>>> ARSList mailing list
>>> ARSList@arslist.org
>>> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ARSList mailing list
>>> ARSList@arslist.org
>>> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ARSList mailing list
>> 

Re: Loadbalancer traffic distribution question

[Kevin M Candelaria]

While on this subject, and I apologize for the hijack.



We currently have our midtiers load balanced as well as our apptiers.

The apptiers and midtier load balancing uses sticky bit.



If we do not close our browsers and try to log on after sessions expire we get 
dumped into the midtier AR authentication page instead of the SAML redirect 
until we clear cache.



Perhaps a problem with apptier load balancing?




From: ARSList  on behalf of Randeep Atwal 

Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 11:43 AM
To: ARSList
Subject: Re: Loadbalancer traffic distribution question

>From the Mid-Tier side, you also might want to review your setttings as 
>described here to work with the load balancer settings:

https://docs.bmc.com/docs/display/public/ars81/Configuring+the+mid+tier+connection+pool

https://docs.bmc.com/docs/brid91/en/configuring-the-mid-tier-connection-pool-610403150.html

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Aspari Sunil Kumar 
> wrote:
There isn't much can be done in mid tier.this is purely LB team need to analyse 
what is going wrong . Need to sit with them and see why all the connections are 
going to one server in reality with the help of logs.. we had strange problem 
recently that on 2 AR servers we used to see same set of users .. we fixed this 
after lot of analysis with LB team


On Feb 1, 2018 7:09 PM, "LJ LongWing" 
> wrote:
I've always preferred to use least connections personally, but from what I've 
read of the docs they recommend round robinbut round robin doesn't explain 
how your LB would be putting everyone on one node...it should literally go 1, 
2, 3, 1, 2, 3 for new connections, and as you discussed, keep you on your 
current server if you are within the timeout, but you should have fairly even 
load across nodesdo they keep logs of the monitor activity so you can 
review if the monitor is reporting a server as down during specified periods?  
What monitor style are you using, ping, tcpip port, something else?

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz 
> wrote:
Hey LJ and thank you for the prompt reply.

Talked to them already. We’re using round robin. I’m not an expert on LB but my 
understanding was that we would have about an equal amount of users on all AR 
Servers using it.

The guy explained that once you connect there is a time out of 180 seconds. If 
you do something within the 180 seconds you will end up on the same server. If 
you don’t they will balance. Sounds plausible. Any yet what’s the likelihood 
that people then will be balanced on the second box and not the third.

Does anyone there use round robin as well? How do your users get distributed? 
What are you Mid Tier settings, connection settings in particular?


Thomas



On Feb 1, 2018, at 4:49 PM, LJ LongWing 
> wrote:

Thomas,
You'll need to work with the LB team to identify what distribution method they 
are usingcommon options are 'round robin' in which it just simply points 
everything at each server in turn, 'least connections' where it tries to 
analyze how many are 'currently' connected to each node and send the traffic to 
the one with the least current loadyou'll also want to check and verify 
that the monitor that you are using to determine if a node is online or not is 
functioning properly because if the LB monitor says a node is down, it 
obviously won't send any traffic to it...but if that monitor is faulty, it 
might be up and running but not reporting as online and can cause the scenario 
you described...

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz 
> wrote:
Hi Listers,

we got a physical load balancer before the Mid-Tier servers and a logical load 
balancer between the Mid Tier and our AR Servers.

We noticed that on some days all the users land on only one AR Server. On other 
days two. What’s the reason behind it? What do we need to configure and to 
enforce equal distribution?


Thomas
--
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

--
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist


--
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist



--
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist



--
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist


-- 
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

Re: Loadbalancer traffic distribution question

[Thomas Miskiewicz]

I reviewed that info before posting here but don’t really see room for change. 
Do you?

> On Feb 1, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Randeep Atwal  wrote:
> 
> From the Mid-Tier side, you also might want to review your setttings as 
> described here to work with the load balancer settings:
> 
> https://docs.bmc.com/docs/display/public/ars81/Configuring+the+mid+tier+connection+pool
>  
> 
> 
> https://docs.bmc.com/docs/brid91/en/configuring-the-mid-tier-connection-pool-610403150.html
>  
> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Aspari Sunil Kumar  > wrote:
> There isn't much can be done in mid tier.this is purely LB team need to 
> analyse what is going wrong . Need to sit with them and see why all the 
> connections are going to one server in reality with the help of logs.. we had 
> strange problem recently that on 2 AR servers we used to see same set of 
> users .. we fixed this after lot of analysis with LB team 
> 
> 
> On Feb 1, 2018 7:09 PM, "LJ LongWing"  > wrote:
> I've always preferred to use least connections personally, but from what I've 
> read of the docs they recommend round robinbut round robin doesn't 
> explain how your LB would be putting everyone on one node...it should 
> literally go 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3 for new connections, and as you discussed, keep 
> you on your current server if you are within the timeout, but you should have 
> fairly even load across nodesdo they keep logs of the monitor activity so 
> you can review if the monitor is reporting a server as down during specified 
> periods?  What monitor style are you using, ping, tcpip port, something else?
> 
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz  > wrote:
> Hey LJ and thank you for the prompt reply.
> 
> Talked to them already. We’re using round robin. I’m not an expert on LB but 
> my understanding was that we would have about an equal amount of users on all 
> AR Servers using it.
> 
> The guy explained that once you connect there is a time out of 180 seconds. 
> If you do something within the 180 seconds you will end up on the same 
> server. If you don’t they will balance. Sounds plausible. Any yet what’s the 
> likelihood that people then will be balanced on the second box and not the 
> third.
> 
> Does anyone there use round robin as well? How do your users get distributed? 
> What are you Mid Tier settings, connection settings in particular?
> 
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 1, 2018, at 4:49 PM, LJ LongWing > > wrote:
>> 
>> Thomas,
>> You'll need to work with the LB team to identify what distribution method 
>> they are usingcommon options are 'round robin' in which it just simply 
>> points everything at each server in turn, 'least connections' where it tries 
>> to analyze how many are 'currently' connected to each node and send the 
>> traffic to the one with the least current loadyou'll also want to check 
>> and verify that the monitor that you are using to determine if a node is 
>> online or not is functioning properly because if the LB monitor says a node 
>> is down, it obviously won't send any traffic to it...but if that monitor is 
>> faulty, it might be up and running but not reporting as online and can cause 
>> the scenario you described...
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz > > wrote:
>> Hi Listers,
>> 
>> we got a physical load balancer before the Mid-Tier servers and a logical 
>> load balancer between the Mid Tier and our AR Servers.
>> 
>> We noticed that on some days all the users land on only one AR Server. On 
>> other days two. What’s the reason behind it? What do we need to configure 
>> and to enforce equal distribution?
>> 
>> 
>> Thomas
>> --
>> ARSList mailing list
>> ARSList@arslist.org 
>> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> ARSList mailing list
>> ARSList@arslist.org 
>> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist 
>> 
> 
> 

-- 
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

Re: Loadbalancer traffic distribution question

[Randeep Atwal]

>From the Mid-Tier side, you also might want to review your setttings as
described here to work with the load balancer settings:

https://docs.bmc.com/docs/display/public/ars81/Configuring+the+mid+tier+connection+pool

https://docs.bmc.com/docs/brid91/en/configuring-the-mid-tier-connection-pool-610403150.html

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Aspari Sunil Kumar 
wrote:

> There isn't much can be done in mid tier.this is purely LB team need to
> analyse what is going wrong . Need to sit with them and see why all the
> connections are going to one server in reality with the help of logs.. we
> had strange problem recently that on 2 AR servers we used to see same set
> of users .. we fixed this after lot of analysis with LB team
>
>
> On Feb 1, 2018 7:09 PM, "LJ LongWing"  wrote:
>
> I've always preferred to use least connections personally, but from what
> I've read of the docs they recommend round robinbut round robin doesn't
> explain how your LB would be putting everyone on one node...it should
> literally go 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3 for new connections, and as you discussed,
> keep you on your current server if you are within the timeout, but you
> should have fairly even load across nodesdo they keep logs of the
> monitor activity so you can review if the monitor is reporting a server as
> down during specified periods?  What monitor style are you using, ping,
> tcpip port, something else?
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz 
> wrote:
>
>> Hey LJ and thank you for the prompt reply.
>>
>> Talked to them already. We’re using round robin. I’m not an expert on LB
>> but my understanding was that we would have about an equal amount of users
>> on all AR Servers using it.
>>
>> The guy explained that once you connect there is a time out of 180
>> seconds. If you do something within the 180 seconds you will end up on the
>> same server. If you don’t they will balance. Sounds plausible. Any yet
>> what’s the likelihood that people then will be balanced on the second box
>> and not the third.
>>
>> Does anyone there use round robin as well? How do your users get
>> distributed? What are you Mid Tier settings, connection settings in
>> particular?
>>
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 1, 2018, at 4:49 PM, LJ LongWing  wrote:
>>
>> Thomas,
>> You'll need to work with the LB team to identify what distribution method
>> they are usingcommon options are 'round robin' in which it just simply
>> points everything at each server in turn, 'least connections' where it
>> tries to analyze how many are 'currently' connected to each node and send
>> the traffic to the one with the least current loadyou'll also want to
>> check and verify that the monitor that you are using to determine if a node
>> is online or not is functioning properly because if the LB monitor says a
>> node is down, it obviously won't send any traffic to it...but if that
>> monitor is faulty, it might be up and running but not reporting as online
>> and can cause the scenario you described...
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Listers,
>>>
>>> we got a physical load balancer before the Mid-Tier servers and a
>>> logical load balancer between the Mid Tier and our AR Servers.
>>>
>>> We noticed that on some days all the users land on only one AR Server.
>>> On other days two. What’s the reason behind it? What do we need to
>>> configure and to enforce equal distribution?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>> --
>>> ARSList mailing list
>>> ARSList@arslist.org
>>> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ARSList mailing list
>> ARSList@arslist.org
>> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ARSList mailing list
>> ARSList@arslist.org
>> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>>
>>
>
> --
> ARSList mailing list
> ARSList@arslist.org
> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>
>
>
> --
> ARSList mailing list
> ARSList@arslist.org
> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>
>
-- 
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

Re: Loadbalancer traffic distribution question

[Aspari Sunil Kumar]

There isn't much can be done in mid tier.this is purely LB team need to
analyse what is going wrong . Need to sit with them and see why all the
connections are going to one server in reality with the help of logs.. we
had strange problem recently that on 2 AR servers we used to see same set
of users .. we fixed this after lot of analysis with LB team

On Feb 1, 2018 7:09 PM, "LJ LongWing"  wrote:

I've always preferred to use least connections personally, but from what
I've read of the docs they recommend round robinbut round robin doesn't
explain how your LB would be putting everyone on one node...it should
literally go 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3 for new connections, and as you discussed,
keep you on your current server if you are within the timeout, but you
should have fairly even load across nodesdo they keep logs of the
monitor activity so you can review if the monitor is reporting a server as
down during specified periods?  What monitor style are you using, ping,
tcpip port, something else?

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz 
wrote:

> Hey LJ and thank you for the prompt reply.
>
> Talked to them already. We’re using round robin. I’m not an expert on LB
> but my understanding was that we would have about an equal amount of users
> on all AR Servers using it.
>
> The guy explained that once you connect there is a time out of 180
> seconds. If you do something within the 180 seconds you will end up on the
> same server. If you don’t they will balance. Sounds plausible. Any yet
> what’s the likelihood that people then will be balanced on the second box
> and not the third.
>
> Does anyone there use round robin as well? How do your users get
> distributed? What are you Mid Tier settings, connection settings in
> particular?
>
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
> On Feb 1, 2018, at 4:49 PM, LJ LongWing  wrote:
>
> Thomas,
> You'll need to work with the LB team to identify what distribution method
> they are usingcommon options are 'round robin' in which it just simply
> points everything at each server in turn, 'least connections' where it
> tries to analyze how many are 'currently' connected to each node and send
> the traffic to the one with the least current loadyou'll also want to
> check and verify that the monitor that you are using to determine if a node
> is online or not is functioning properly because if the LB monitor says a
> node is down, it obviously won't send any traffic to it...but if that
> monitor is faulty, it might be up and running but not reporting as online
> and can cause the scenario you described...
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Listers,
>>
>> we got a physical load balancer before the Mid-Tier servers and a logical
>> load balancer between the Mid Tier and our AR Servers.
>>
>> We noticed that on some days all the users land on only one AR Server. On
>> other days two. What’s the reason behind it? What do we need to configure
>> and to enforce equal distribution?
>>
>>
>> Thomas
>> --
>> ARSList mailing list
>> ARSList@arslist.org
>> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>>
>
> --
> ARSList mailing list
> ARSList@arslist.org
> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>
>
>
> --
> ARSList mailing list
> ARSList@arslist.org
> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>
>

--
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
-- 
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

Re: Loadbalancer traffic distribution question

[LJ LongWing]

I've always preferred to use least connections personally, but from what
I've read of the docs they recommend round robinbut round robin doesn't
explain how your LB would be putting everyone on one node...it should
literally go 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3 for new connections, and as you discussed,
keep you on your current server if you are within the timeout, but you
should have fairly even load across nodesdo they keep logs of the
monitor activity so you can review if the monitor is reporting a server as
down during specified periods?  What monitor style are you using, ping,
tcpip port, something else?

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz 
wrote:

> Hey LJ and thank you for the prompt reply.
>
> Talked to them already. We’re using round robin. I’m not an expert on LB
> but my understanding was that we would have about an equal amount of users
> on all AR Servers using it.
>
> The guy explained that once you connect there is a time out of 180
> seconds. If you do something within the 180 seconds you will end up on the
> same server. If you don’t they will balance. Sounds plausible. Any yet
> what’s the likelihood that people then will be balanced on the second box
> and not the third.
>
> Does anyone there use round robin as well? How do your users get
> distributed? What are you Mid Tier settings, connection settings in
> particular?
>
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
> On Feb 1, 2018, at 4:49 PM, LJ LongWing  wrote:
>
> Thomas,
> You'll need to work with the LB team to identify what distribution method
> they are usingcommon options are 'round robin' in which it just simply
> points everything at each server in turn, 'least connections' where it
> tries to analyze how many are 'currently' connected to each node and send
> the traffic to the one with the least current loadyou'll also want to
> check and verify that the monitor that you are using to determine if a node
> is online or not is functioning properly because if the LB monitor says a
> node is down, it obviously won't send any traffic to it...but if that
> monitor is faulty, it might be up and running but not reporting as online
> and can cause the scenario you described...
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Listers,
>>
>> we got a physical load balancer before the Mid-Tier servers and a logical
>> load balancer between the Mid Tier and our AR Servers.
>>
>> We noticed that on some days all the users land on only one AR Server. On
>> other days two. What’s the reason behind it? What do we need to configure
>> and to enforce equal distribution?
>>
>>
>> Thomas
>> --
>> ARSList mailing list
>> ARSList@arslist.org
>> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>>
>
> --
> ARSList mailing list
> ARSList@arslist.org
> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>
>
>
> --
> ARSList mailing list
> ARSList@arslist.org
> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>
>
-- 
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

Re: Loadbalancer traffic distribution question

[Thomas Miskiewicz]

Hey LJ and thank you for the prompt reply.

Talked to them already. We’re using round robin. I’m not an expert on LB but my 
understanding was that we would have about an equal amount of users on all AR 
Servers using it.

The guy explained that once you connect there is a time out of 180 seconds. If 
you do something within the 180 seconds you will end up on the same server. If 
you don’t they will balance. Sounds plausible. Any yet what’s the likelihood 
that people then will be balanced on the second box and not the third.

Does anyone there use round robin as well? How do your users get distributed? 
What are you Mid Tier settings, connection settings in particular?


Thomas



> On Feb 1, 2018, at 4:49 PM, LJ LongWing  wrote:
> 
> Thomas,
> You'll need to work with the LB team to identify what distribution method 
> they are usingcommon options are 'round robin' in which it just simply 
> points everything at each server in turn, 'least connections' where it tries 
> to analyze how many are 'currently' connected to each node and send the 
> traffic to the one with the least current loadyou'll also want to check 
> and verify that the monitor that you are using to determine if a node is 
> online or not is functioning properly because if the LB monitor says a node 
> is down, it obviously won't send any traffic to it...but if that monitor is 
> faulty, it might be up and running but not reporting as online and can cause 
> the scenario you described...
> 
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz  > wrote:
> Hi Listers,
> 
> we got a physical load balancer before the Mid-Tier servers and a logical 
> load balancer between the Mid Tier and our AR Servers.
> 
> We noticed that on some days all the users land on only one AR Server. On 
> other days two. What’s the reason behind it? What do we need to configure and 
> to enforce equal distribution?
> 
> 
> Thomas
> --
> ARSList mailing list
> ARSList@arslist.org 
> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ARSList mailing list
> ARSList@arslist.org
> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

-- 
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

Re: Loadbalancer traffic distribution question

[LJ LongWing]

Thomas,
You'll need to work with the LB team to identify what distribution method
they are usingcommon options are 'round robin' in which it just simply
points everything at each server in turn, 'least connections' where it
tries to analyze how many are 'currently' connected to each node and send
the traffic to the one with the least current loadyou'll also want to
check and verify that the monitor that you are using to determine if a node
is online or not is functioning properly because if the LB monitor says a
node is down, it obviously won't send any traffic to it...but if that
monitor is faulty, it might be up and running but not reporting as online
and can cause the scenario you described...

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Thomas Miskiewicz 
wrote:

> Hi Listers,
>
> we got a physical load balancer before the Mid-Tier servers and a logical
> load balancer between the Mid Tier and our AR Servers.
>
> We noticed that on some days all the users land on only one AR Server. On
> other days two. What’s the reason behind it? What do we need to configure
> and to enforce equal distribution?
>
>
> Thomas
> --
> ARSList mailing list
> ARSList@arslist.org
> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
>
-- 
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

Loadbalancer traffic distribution question

[Thomas Miskiewicz]

Hi Listers,

we got a physical load balancer before the Mid-Tier servers and a logical load 
balancer between the Mid Tier and our AR Servers.

We noticed that on some days all the users land on only one AR Server. On other 
days two. What’s the reason behind it? What do we need to configure and to 
enforce equal distribution?


Thomas
-- 
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist