Welcome to ISAserver.org
Forums |
Register |
Login |
My Profile |
Inbox |
RSS
|
My Subscription |
My Forums |
Address Book |
Member List |
Search |
FAQ |
Ticket List |
Log Out
Stateful Failover
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
Login | |
|
Stateful Failover - 26.Mar.2007 9:29:06 AM
|
|
|
sipes
Posts: 4
Joined: 26.Mar.2007
Status: offline
|
Is it possible, with ISA server 2006 implemented in a firewall sandwich (example: [2] F5 big IP LTM/[2] ISA2006/[2] F5 big IP LTM), to have a stateful failover of a SSL session? (Example: establishing a https SharePoint session using form base authentication on the ISA server, uploading a word DOC and dropping one of the ISA servers and not losing the upload?
|
|
|
|
RE: Stateful Failover - 1.Apr.2007 12:05:31 PM
|
|
|
tshinder
Posts: 47659
Joined: 10.Jan.2001
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
While waste the money on F5? Web Farm Loading balancing will give you the same thing as a fraction of the cost and you can use your IT budget for something more useful. HTH, Tom
_____________________________
Thomas W Shinder, M.D. Sr. Consultant/Technical Writer Prowess Consulting http://www.prowessconsulting.com/ Blog: http://blogs.isaserver.org/shinder/ GET THE NEW ISA 2006 Book!: http://tinyurl.com/2gpoo8
|
|
|
|
RE: Stateful Failover - 2.Apr.2007 2:12:27 PM
|
|
|
sipes
Posts: 4
Joined: 26.Mar.2007
Status: offline
|
The Root question is: Is stateful Failover possible with 2 or more ISA servers. Example: user logs in using forms based authentication to SharePoint and the ISA server the user is using fails, will the other ISA server takeover the session without the user having to log back in? I have been around the block with Microsoft and the answer I receive was no. Thank you for your response.
|
|
|
|
RE: Stateful Failover - 2.Apr.2007 3:48:47 PM
|
|
|
tshinder
Posts: 47659
Joined: 10.Jan.2001
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
Hi Sipes, Stateful is a evil term that has no meaning without a qualifier. What you're actually interested in is transparent failover, and you don't really care of TCP state, UDP pseudo-state, or application state. The answer is yes -- if you use Web Farm load balancing, you won't have to reauth. HTH, Tom
_____________________________
Thomas W Shinder, M.D. Sr. Consultant/Technical Writer Prowess Consulting http://www.prowessconsulting.com/ Blog: http://blogs.isaserver.org/shinder/ GET THE NEW ISA 2006 Book!: http://tinyurl.com/2gpoo8
|
|
|
|
RE: Stateful Failover - 2.Apr.2007 5:20:27 PM
|
|
|
sipes
Posts: 4
Joined: 26.Mar.2007
Status: offline
|
Thank you for your reply. Can you point me to more information? (Links, DOCs, White Papers?) I was lead to believe that Web Farm Load balancing was all at the web server end; if one web server went down, the user would not lose their session. I have not come across any documentation about an array member failure and transparent failover to another member of the array with a user not losing there session. Sipes
|
|
|
|
RE: Stateful Failover - 4.Apr.2007 3:02:49 PM
|
|
|
tshinder
Posts: 47659
Joined: 10.Jan.2001
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
Hi Sipes, That's different. Yes, NLB doesn't keep the application state intact (authentication state actually) so users will need to auth again. However, if a member of the Web farm goes does down, there's no need to auth again. HTH, Tom
_____________________________
Thomas W Shinder, M.D. Sr. Consultant/Technical Writer Prowess Consulting http://www.prowessconsulting.com/ Blog: http://blogs.isaserver.org/shinder/ GET THE NEW ISA 2006 Book!: http://tinyurl.com/2gpoo8
|
|
|
|
RE: Stateful Failover - 9.Apr.2007 6:48:21 PM
|
|
|
sipes
Posts: 4
Joined: 26.Mar.2007
Status: offline
|
Tom Thank you for all your help. Do you think Microsoft will add that type of functionality in the next release?
|
|
|
|
New Messages |
No New Messages |
Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
Locked w/ New Messages |
Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|