Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 23 of 23
  1. #1
    Look! My Spine! RubenX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Winter Springs, FL
    Posts
    539
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Load Balancing on WinXP

    AFAIK, in order to "load balance" a windows box you needed a fancy router capable of doing it, paired with some fancy software install @ the box (usually provided by the router manufacturer).

    However, I've been told that some tools can be installed at the PC and they will "mingle" with the networking, sending some packets through one interface and some packets through another interface.

    I've also been told this approach can sometimes be counter-productive because some PCs can't handle the extra overhead fast enough to get any benefit. But on some instances (like when downloading large files split into multiple parts) the user can see a substantial benefit in increased bandwidth.

    I've google'd for such a tool to no avail. It either doesn't exist or my google-fo is weak. Anybody can shed some light on this?
    "Hoy es un dia normal, pero yo voy a hacerlo intenso" ~ Juanes

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    835
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Server 2003 which is based on the xp kernel has network load balancing capability built in, IIRC. You may be able to find something similar hidden in XP, or as a compatible add-on to XP.

    Why would you need to load balance ancient XP boxes in the first place?

  3. #3
    You Know!? For Kids! jsharr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Just NW of Richardson Bike Mart
    My Bikes
    '05 Trek 1200 / '90 Trek 8000 / '? Falcon Europa
    Posts
    6,047
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SPlKE View Post
    Server 2003 which is based on the xp kernel has network load balancing capability built in, IIRC. You may be able to find something similar hidden in XP, or as a compatible add-on to XP.

    Why would you need to load balance ancient XP boxes in the first place?
    They are probably gettting unbalanced in the spin cycle and shutting down then Ruben does not have any clean underwear. I know that is what happens when my machine at home gets unbalanced, but it is a Maytag running TideXP.
    Are you a registered member? Why not? Click here to register. It's free and only takes 27 seconds! Help out the forums, abide by our community guidelines.
    Quote Originally Posted by colorider View Post
    Phobias are for irrational fears. Fear of junk ripping badgers is perfectly rational. Those things are nasty.

  4. #4
    Chepooka StupidlyBrave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Central PA
    My Bikes
    1990 Trek 1400 7spd; 2001 Litespeed Arenberg 10 speed
    Posts
    1,155
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Spin cycle for the win!

  5. #5
    derailleurs are overrated bigbenaugust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    KIGX
    My Bikes
    2009 Motobecane Fantom CX, 2011 Windsor Shetland mini-velo, 2012 Motobecane Fantom Cross Uno SSCX
    Posts
    1,649
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ruben, are you high on drugs?
    --Ben
    Carrboro Bike Coalition - putting the "bike" in "CARrboro" :)
    2011 Motobecane Fantom Cross Uno, 2009 Motobecane Fantom CX, 2011 Windsor Shetland
    Previously: 2000 Trek 4500 (2000-2003), 2003 Novara Randonee (2003-2006), 2003 Giant Rainier (2003-2008), 2005 Xootr Swift (2005-2007), 2007 Nashbar 1x9 (2007-2011)
    Current Linux Usage (by machine): Arch: II Debian: II openSUSE: I

  6. #6
    Fax Transport Specialist black_box's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    chicago burbs
    My Bikes
    '07 fuji cross pro, '10 gary fisher x-caliber
    Posts
    783
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    what sort of internet connection and computers are you trying to balance here? where is the bottleneck?

  7. #7
    derailleurs are overrated bigbenaugust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    KIGX
    My Bikes
    2009 Motobecane Fantom CX, 2011 Windsor Shetland mini-velo, 2012 Motobecane Fantom Cross Uno SSCX
    Posts
    1,649
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Other than my previous comment, I remembered that the Broadcom dual-GbE cards in a bunch of my servers have Windows drivers that support trunking over both interfaces. But that's for WS2k3, not sure about XP and whatever hardware you have.
    --Ben
    Carrboro Bike Coalition - putting the "bike" in "CARrboro" :)
    2011 Motobecane Fantom Cross Uno, 2009 Motobecane Fantom CX, 2011 Windsor Shetland
    Previously: 2000 Trek 4500 (2000-2003), 2003 Novara Randonee (2003-2006), 2003 Giant Rainier (2003-2008), 2005 Xootr Swift (2005-2007), 2007 Nashbar 1x9 (2007-2011)
    Current Linux Usage (by machine): Arch: II Debian: II openSUSE: I

  8. #8
    Senior Member Ultraslide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    My Bikes
    73 Raleigh Supercourse, 99 Specialized Stumpjumer, 08 LeMond Tourmalet
    Posts
    782
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You may be able to bond the nics, if supported by the nic, for more bandwidth if that's what you mean. In that case you can get an older used Cisco switch and turn on port bonding. This combines the speed of both nics but still looks like one to the client.

    To really load balance you need two computers to load balance between. This can be accomplished with open source tools on a spare PC, with 2 or more nics, that round robin the requests between two computers. Windows 2003 and up also support load balancing out of the box. On a grand scale there is dedicated hardware for this task.
    All I'm saying is ... large pigs can run faster than you think.

  9. #9
    derailleurs are overrated bigbenaugust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    KIGX
    My Bikes
    2009 Motobecane Fantom CX, 2011 Windsor Shetland mini-velo, 2012 Motobecane Fantom Cross Uno SSCX
    Posts
    1,649
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think Ruben needs some BigIP hardware in his house.
    --Ben
    Carrboro Bike Coalition - putting the "bike" in "CARrboro" :)
    2011 Motobecane Fantom Cross Uno, 2009 Motobecane Fantom CX, 2011 Windsor Shetland
    Previously: 2000 Trek 4500 (2000-2003), 2003 Novara Randonee (2003-2006), 2003 Giant Rainier (2003-2008), 2005 Xootr Swift (2005-2007), 2007 Nashbar 1x9 (2007-2011)
    Current Linux Usage (by machine): Arch: II Debian: II openSUSE: I

  10. #10
    Senior Member Shimagnolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Zang's Spur, CO
    Posts
    6,083
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    "Load balancing" generally refers to distributing incoming client connections across multiple servers.

    What the OP is looking is usually called "bonding" of multiple ISP connections, (although the term LB is occasionally used). Bonding requires gear and configuration at both ends of the links.

    An option not using bonding, (or the ISP bonding gear/config), would be to have the multiple ISP connections fed into a router with static routes for part of the Internet to one ISP, and routes to the remainder of the Internet to the other ISP.

    Bottom line: Unless the OP has multiple ISP connections, he is wasting his time.

  11. #11
    Fax Transport Specialist black_box's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    chicago burbs
    My Bikes
    '07 fuji cross pro, '10 gary fisher x-caliber
    Posts
    783
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Shimagnolo View Post
    Bottom line: Unless the OP has multiple ISP connections, he is wasting his time.
    this is what I was thinking. Complex balancing of client requests isn't necessary for "downloading large files split into multiple parts."

    Wait a minute, RubenX, are you leaching WiFi from multiple neighbors and want to bridge the connections to download porn faster?

  12. #12
    derailleurs are overrated bigbenaugust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    KIGX
    My Bikes
    2009 Motobecane Fantom CX, 2011 Windsor Shetland mini-velo, 2012 Motobecane Fantom Cross Uno SSCX
    Posts
    1,649
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by black_box View Post
    this is what I was thinking. Complex balancing of client requests isn't necessary for "downloading large files split into multiple parts."

    Wait a minute, RubenX, are you leaching WiFi from multiple neighbors and want to bridge the connections to download porn faster?
    He has a bank of 56k modems on his coffee table, all dialing up to the same ISP.
    --Ben
    Carrboro Bike Coalition - putting the "bike" in "CARrboro" :)
    2011 Motobecane Fantom Cross Uno, 2009 Motobecane Fantom CX, 2011 Windsor Shetland
    Previously: 2000 Trek 4500 (2000-2003), 2003 Novara Randonee (2003-2006), 2003 Giant Rainier (2003-2008), 2005 Xootr Swift (2005-2007), 2007 Nashbar 1x9 (2007-2011)
    Current Linux Usage (by machine): Arch: II Debian: II openSUSE: I

  13. #13
    Look! My Spine! RubenX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Winter Springs, FL
    Posts
    539
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    OK... there are many type of loads that could be balanced, confusing, granted.

    What I want is 2 wifi links to the same wifi router. Sorta like MLPPP (RFC 1717) back in the day:



    ...but with multiple Wifi links.
    "Hoy es un dia normal, pero yo voy a hacerlo intenso" ~ Juanes

  14. #14
    Senior Member Shimagnolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Zang's Spur, CO
    Posts
    6,083
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sounds like you just need 802.11n gear capable of 2 or more MIMO streams:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11n-2009

    i.e. a pair of high end AP's each capable of running 2 or more streams, set up as bridges.
    How much throughput do you need?

  15. #15
    Look! My Spine! RubenX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Winter Springs, FL
    Posts
    539
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    OK ok... from your sugestions I've google'd and it seems the correct modern WinXP lingo is to "bridge" multiple connections. Seems fairly easy and requires no 3rd party software.

    1. Set Up your 2 Wifi Links.
    2. Open Network Connections.
    3. Right Click one connection and choose "Bridge Connections" from the menu.
    4. Include all the Wifi connections into this bridge
    5. ....
    6. Profit.

    Now, each connection I have here is 54Mbps. Theoretically (ignoring overhead, ect) the max combined bandwidth should be 108Mbps. However, the newly created Bridge is reporting a 130Mbps connection, meaning it thinks there is an extra 22Mbps that came out of thin air...weird. Actual transfers are ridiculously slower than when using just one wifi connection. This confuses and infuriates me.
    "Hoy es un dia normal, pero yo voy a hacerlo intenso" ~ Juanes

  16. #16
    derailleurs are overrated bigbenaugust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    KIGX
    My Bikes
    2009 Motobecane Fantom CX, 2011 Windsor Shetland mini-velo, 2012 Motobecane Fantom Cross Uno SSCX
    Posts
    1,649
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ... for pete's sake, go get some 802.11n hardware. Up to 300Mbps!!! Even I have N150 hardware!
    --Ben
    Carrboro Bike Coalition - putting the "bike" in "CARrboro" :)
    2011 Motobecane Fantom Cross Uno, 2009 Motobecane Fantom CX, 2011 Windsor Shetland
    Previously: 2000 Trek 4500 (2000-2003), 2003 Novara Randonee (2003-2006), 2003 Giant Rainier (2003-2008), 2005 Xootr Swift (2005-2007), 2007 Nashbar 1x9 (2007-2011)
    Current Linux Usage (by machine): Arch: II Debian: II openSUSE: I

  17. #17
    BF's Level 12 Wizard SingingSabre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    My Bikes
    Diamondback Sorrento turned Xtracycle commuter
    Posts
    1,414
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RubenX View Post
    OK ok... from your sugestions I've google'd and it seems the correct modern WinXP lingo is to "bridge" multiple connections. Seems fairly easy and requires no 3rd party software.

    1. Set Up your 2 Wifi Links.
    2. Open Network Connections.
    3. Right Click one connection and choose "Bridge Connections" from the menu.
    4. Include all the Wifi connections into this bridge
    5. ....
    6. Profit.

    Now, each connection I have here is 54Mbps. Theoretically (ignoring overhead, ect) the max combined bandwidth should be 108Mbps. However, the newly created Bridge is reporting a 130Mbps connection, meaning it thinks there is an extra 22Mbps that came out of thin air...weird. Actual transfers are ridiculously slower than when using just one wifi connection. This confuses and infuriates me.
    7. Beat your head against the desk because you forgot that it's Windows and will never be as easy as the instructions make it seem.

    Shameless plug (my sites):
    Photography
    Vanity
    Quote Originally Posted by Bklyn
    Obviously, the guy's like a 12th level white wizard or something. His mere presence is a danger to mortals.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    835
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SingingSabre View Post
    7. Beat your head against the desk because you forgot that it's Windows and will never be as easy as the instructions make it seem.

    If you think it's hard in windows, try bridging NICs in mac or linux.

  19. #19
    Look! My Spine! RubenX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Winter Springs, FL
    Posts
    539
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SingingSabre View Post
    7. Beat your head against the desk because you forgot that it's Windows and will never be as easy as the instructions make it seem.

    thruth
    "Hoy es un dia normal, pero yo voy a hacerlo intenso" ~ Juanes

  20. #20
    Pleasurable Pain greyghost_6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Bloomington, IN
    My Bikes
    Voodoo Rada, Voodoo Wazoo, Smith & Wesson Tactical,
    Posts
    348
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ruben what is the problem? It seems like you are trying to load balance your connection from your PC to your router. This makes no sense since most routers function at 100mbps and 1Gbps, and most internet connections are around 10mbps. So to load balance in XP out 2 different interfaces (2 nic cards) isn't something that would give you a boost on the internet. Unless you manage a large organization...on XP.....you could make it so you have 2 NIC cards, one handling incoming traffic, and the other handle outgoing. So maybe understanding the problem you are experiencing may help us advise you.

    My FOO answer to you is.... use a 56k modem and make sure you use gold plated phone cables, and you will surely never notice the difference between load balanced and non load balanced.
    I had to re-learn how to walk once, but never needed to re-learn how to ride a bike. Cyclist for life.

  21. #21
    Look! My Spine! RubenX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Winter Springs, FL
    Posts
    539
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Nah... I've abandon this project. I did "bridged" 2 wifi adapters but the transfer speed was the same. I was mostly doing it for the sake of knowledge pursuit. But it seems I lack the wisdom to figure this out.

    My hypothesis, the multiple wifi adapters are interfering/competing with each other at the radio frequency level.

    I shall upgrade to "n" and keep it simple.
    "Hoy es un dia normal, pero yo voy a hacerlo intenso" ~ Juanes

  22. #22
    Senior Member Shimagnolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Zang's Spur, CO
    Posts
    6,083
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by greyghost_6 View Post
    This makes no sense since most routers function at 100mbps and 1Gbps, and most internet connections are around 10mbps.
    In the 90's I was working in the networking dept of a large company. At the time we had just 10Mb to the desktops, and some guy who fancied himself to be a power-user, kept ranting that he needed 100Mb to his desktop. Finally, he solved the problem himself, and proudly showed the solution to one of my peers: He bought a little 10/100Mb switch, plugged it in between the wall jack and his desktop, and his desktop interface was now running at 100Mb. And he noticed *dramatically* improved performance!

  23. #23
    derailleurs are overrated bigbenaugust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    KIGX
    My Bikes
    2009 Motobecane Fantom CX, 2011 Windsor Shetland mini-velo, 2012 Motobecane Fantom Cross Uno SSCX
    Posts
    1,649
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RubenX View Post
    Nah... I've abandon this project. I did "bridged" 2 wifi adapters but the transfer speed was the same. I was mostly doing it for the sake of knowledge pursuit. But it seems I lack the wisdom to figure this out.

    My hypothesis, the multiple wifi adapters are interfering/competing with each other at the radio frequency level.

    I shall upgrade to "n" and keep it simple.
    Very intelligent.
    --Ben
    Carrboro Bike Coalition - putting the "bike" in "CARrboro" :)
    2011 Motobecane Fantom Cross Uno, 2009 Motobecane Fantom CX, 2011 Windsor Shetland
    Previously: 2000 Trek 4500 (2000-2003), 2003 Novara Randonee (2003-2006), 2003 Giant Rainier (2003-2008), 2005 Xootr Swift (2005-2007), 2007 Nashbar 1x9 (2007-2011)
    Current Linux Usage (by machine): Arch: II Debian: II openSUSE: I

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •