For more information regarding the security incident at F5, the actions we are taking to address it, and our ongoing efforts to protect our customers, click here.

Forum Discussion

RocFive_147660's avatar
RocFive_147660
Icon for Nimbostratus rankNimbostratus
Mar 18, 2014

about new virtual server and new pool on F5 LTM 1600 load balancer

Hello all F5 experts,

 

I am a newbie at this forum.

 

May you please give some advice on the following statements if they are correct or not ?

 

  • On F5 Big-IP LTM 1600 load balancer, I create a new virtual server and a new pool.
  • The new pool include two new members. The IP of two new members stay on the same subnet as the existing pool's members.

  • Thus, there will be two pools finally.

     

  • The new virtual server use a new custom profile.

     

  • The new virtual server map with the new pool.

     

  • The new virtual server, new pool, new custom profile will not affect the performance of existing virtual server & pool.

Thanks very much,

 

Roc

 

5 Replies

  • Patrik_Jonsson's avatar
    Patrik_Jonsson
    Icon for MVP rankMVP
    Mar 18, 2014

    Hi Roc

     

    The new VIP+pools will add extra load on the interface that faces the pool members on the F5. But other than that, the answer would be no. :)

     

    /Patrik

     

  • RocFive_147660's avatar
    RocFive_147660
    Icon for Nimbostratus rankNimbostratus
    Mar 18, 2014

    Hello Patrik or others,

     

    The new pool of the two members should work as active-standby mode. New Pool include both server A and server B.

     

    Server A act as active server to take all the traffic sent to the virtual IP

     

    Server B act as standby server and Server B would NOT take any traffic unless Server A is suddenly down or lose network connectivity.

     

    Should I configure two different priority groups so that Server A always has higher priority than Server B ?

     

    Priority Group 2 for Server A

     

    Priority Group 1 for Server B

     

    Priority Group 2 has higher priority than Priority Group 1

     

    Am I correct with the statements related to priority group ?

     

  • Patrik_Jonsson's avatar
    Patrik_Jonsson
    Icon for MVP rankMVP
    Mar 18, 2014

    Hi!

     

    You are right. Just don't forget to set Priority group activation to less than 1.

     

    /Patrik

     

  • RocFive_147660's avatar
    RocFive_147660
    Icon for Nimbostratus rankNimbostratus
    Mar 24, 2014

    Thanks Patrik for the reply !

     

    May you please help give some advice on the statements below ?

     

    10.0.0.3 is the F5 BIG-IP 1600's virtual server IP

     

    10.0.0.1 is the IP of Server A, 10.0.0.2 is the IP of Server B.

     

    Both Server A & Server B belong to the same pool while Server A has higher proirity than Server B.

     

    The timeout value of the persistence profile = 604800 seconds

     

    This persistence profile is used by the virtual server

     

    When we telnet 10.0.0.3 with some TCP port(s), the telnet session can be kept as "connected" status for around 8 minutes. Afterwards, the telnet session will be broken down suddenly.

     

    The telnet session to 10.0.0.3 is telnet to exactly 10.0.0.1 at the background.

     

    However, the telnet session can be kept always connected when we directly telnet to 10.0.0.1

     

    Why the telnet session to F5's virtual server IP is suddenly broken down ?

     

    Is it related to timeout value ?

     

    Thanks very much !

     

    Roc

     

  • Patrik_Jonsson's avatar
    Patrik_Jonsson
    Icon for MVP rankMVP
    Mar 24, 2014

    Hi Roc!

     

    Have you tried changing the timeout of the virtual servers tcp profiles timeout value? Default is 300 seconds.

     

    /Patrik