[Lustre-discuss] Lustre over two TCP interfaces
Indivar Nair
indivar.nair at techterra.in
Wed Jun 26 11:05:54 PDT 2013
Hi Alfonso,
I guess, you have two switches, with 2 interfaces (bond0) connected to one
switch and the other 2 interfaces (bond1) to the second switch.
---
What you need to do is merge the switches using a 'stacking' cable (if the
switches are stackable) and create a single trunk using 2 ports from each
switch.
Then create a single bond on the Linux side using all the 4 Interfaces (and
have just 1 IP).
Use bonding mode balance-rr or 0 without LACP to get load balancing across
all the 4 NICs.
If the switches aren't stackable and a single trunk cannot be created on
the switch side, then use bonding mode balance-alb or 6 on the Linux side.
No changes need to be done to the cabling in either case.
---
This way you get Load Balancing and H/A across NICs.
Indivar Nair
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Michael Shuey <shuey at purdue.edu> wrote:
> That will probably be slow - the machine you use to proxy the IPVS address
> would be a bottleneck. Out of curiosity, what problem are you trying to
> solve here? Do you anticipate whole-subnet outages to be an issue (and if
> so, why)?
>
> --
> Mike Shuey
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Alfonso Pardo <alfonso.pardo at ciemat.es>wrote:
>
>> oooh!
>>
>>
>> Thanks for you reply! May be another way is a floating IP between two
>> interfaces with IPVS (corosync).
>>
>> -----Mensaje original----- From: Brian O'Connor
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 10:15 AM
>> To: Alfonso Pardo
>> Cc: 'Michael Shuey' ; 'WC-Discuss' ; lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.**org<lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] Lustre over two TCP interfaces
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/26/2013 04:16 PM, Alfonso Pardo wrote:
>>
>>> But.... if I configure the OST assigning to the first interface of the
>>> OSS (bond0) and as failover OSS the second inteface of the OSS. If the
>>> bond0 network down, the client will try to connect to the failover, that
>>> is the second interface of the OSS.
>>> is it possible?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I stand to be corrected, but no, I don't think so. As I understand it
>> the failover code looks for a different server instance, rather than a
>> different nid.
>>
>> See
>>
>> http://lists.opensfs.org/**pipermail/lustre-devel-**
>> opensfs.org/2012-August/**000028.html<http://lists.opensfs.org/pipermail/lustre-devel-opensfs.org/2012-August/000028.html>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Brian O'Connor <mailto:briano at sgi.com>
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 26, 2013 1:09 AM
>>> *To:* 'Alfonso Pardo' <mailto:alfonso.pardo at ciemat.**es<alfonso.pardo at ciemat.es>>
>>> ; 'Michael Shuey'
>>> <mailto:shuey at purdue.edu>
>>> *Cc:* 'WC-Discuss' <mailto:WC-Discuss.Migration@**intel.com<WC-Discuss.Migration at intel.com>>
>>> ;
>>> mailto:lustre-discuss at lists.**lustre.org<lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>
>>> *Subject:* RE: [Lustre-discuss] Lustre over two TCP interfaces
>>> Unless something has changed in the new versions of lustre, I don't
>>> think lustre can do failover between nids on the same machine.
>>>
>>> It can choose the available nid at mount time, but if an active nid goes
>>> away after you are mounted then the client chooses the failover nid, and
>>> this must be on a different server.
>>>
>>> Check the archives for more discussion in this topic :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> *From: *Alfonso Pardo [alfonso.pardo at ciemat.es
>>> <mailto:alfonso.pardo at ciemat.**es <alfonso.pardo at ciemat.es>>]
>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, June 25, 2013 07:23 AM Central Standard Time
>>> *To: *Michael Shuey
>>> *Cc: *WC-Discuss; lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.**org<lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [Lustre-discuss] Lustre over two TCP interfaces
>>>
>>> thank Michael,
>>> This is my second step, I will change the lnet with “options lnet
>>> networks=tcp0(bond0,bond1)” because my machines has 4 nics. I have a
>>> bond0 and bond1 with LACP. I need to comunicate the clients with two
>>> network for HA network.
>>> If the bond0 network is down, the clients can reach the OSS by the
>>> second network bond1.
>>> If I change the modprobe with “options lnet
>>> networks=tcp0(bond0),tcp1(**bond1)”, how the clients mount the
>>> filesystem
>>> to reach the OSS by two network?
>>> *From:* Michael Shuey <mailto:shuey at purdue.edu>
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 25, 2013 2:14 PM
>>> *To:* Alfonso Pardo <mailto:alfonso.pardo at ciemat.**es<alfonso.pardo at ciemat.es>
>>> >
>>> *Cc:* lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.**org<lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>
>>> <mailto:lustre-discuss at lists.**lustre.org<lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>>
>>> ; WC-Discuss
>>> <mailto:WC-Discuss.Migration@**intel.com<WC-Discuss.Migration at intel.com>
>>> >
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Lustre-discuss] Lustre over two TCP interfaces
>>> Different interfaces need to be declared with different LNET networks -
>>> something like "networks=tcp0(eth0),tcp1(**eth1)". Of course, that
>>> assumes your clients are configured to use a mix of tcp0 and tcp1 for
>>> connections (with each client only using one of the two). This is
>>> really only useful in corner cases, when you're doing something strange;
>>> if eth0 and eth1 are in the same subnet (as in your example), this is
>>> almost certainly not productive.
>>> A better bet might be to use a single LNET, and bond the two interfaces
>>> together - either as an active/passive pair, or active/active (e.g.,
>>> LACP). Then you'd declare networks=tcp0(bond0), give the bond a single
>>> IP address, and client traffic would be split across the two members in
>>> the bond more like you probably expect (given the limits of the bond
>>> protocol you're using).
>>> --
>>> Mike Shuey
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Alfonso Pardo <alfonso.pardo at ciemat.es
>>> <mailto:alfonso.pardo at ciemat.**es <alfonso.pardo at ciemat.es>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> hello friends,
>>> I need to comunicate my OSS by two ethernet TCP interfaces: eth0 and
>>> eth1.
>>> I have configured this feature in my modprobe.d with:
>>> “options lnet networks=tcp0(eth0,eth1)”
>>> And I can see two interfaces with:
>>> lctl --net tcp interface_list
>>> sa-d4-01.ceta-ciemat.es <http://sa-d4-01.ceta-ciemat.**es<http://sa-d4-01.ceta-ciemat.es>
>>> >:
>>> (192.168.11.15/255.255.255.0 <http://192.168.11.15/255.255.**255.0<http://192.168.11.15/255.255.255.0>
>>> >)
>>> npeer 0 nroute 2
>>> sa-d4-01.ceta-ciemat.es <http://sa-d4-01.ceta-ciemat.**es<http://sa-d4-01.ceta-ciemat.es>
>>> >:
>>> (192.168.11.35/255.255.255.0 <http://192.168.11.35/255.255.**255.0<http://192.168.11.35/255.255.255.0>
>>> >)
>>> npeer 0 nroute 0
>>> But, the clients only can communicate with the first interface:
>>> lctl ping 192.168.11.15
>>> 12345-0 at lo
>>> 12345-192.168.11.15 at tcp
>>> lctl ping 192.168.11.35
>>> failed to ping 192.168.11.35 at tcp: Input/output error
>>> Any suggestions how to “enable” the second interface?
>>> thank in advance
>>>
>>> /Alfonso Pardo Diaz/
>>> /*System Administrator / Researcher*/
>>> /c/ Sola nº 1; 10200 TRUJILLO, SPAIN/
>>> /Tel: +34 927 65 93 17 <tel:%2B34%20927%2065%2093%**2017> Fax: +34
>>> 927
>>> 32 32 37/
>>>
>>> CETA-Ciemat logo <http://www.ceta-ciemat.es/>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------- Confidencialidad: Este mensaje y sus
>>> ficheros adjuntos se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede
>>> contener información privilegiada o confidencial. Si no es vd. el
>>> destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la utilización,
>>> divulgación y/o copia sin autorización está prohibida en virtud de
>>> la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le
>>> rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente respondiendo al mensaje
>>> y proceda a su destrucción. Disclaimer: This message and its
>>> attached files is intended exclusively for its recipients and may
>>> contain confidential information. If you received this e-mail in
>>> error you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or
>>> disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be
>>> unlawful. In this case, please notify us by a reply and delete this
>>> email and its contents immediately. ----------------------------
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> Lustre-discuss mailing list
>>> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.**org <Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org><mailto:
>>> Lustre-discuss at lists.**lustre.org <Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>>
>>> http://lists.lustre.org/**mailman/listinfo/lustre-**discuss<http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Brian O'Connor
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**-
>> SGI Consulting
>> Email: briano at sgi.com, Mobile +61 417 746 452
>> Phone: +61 3 9963 1900, Fax: +61 3 9963 1902
>> 691 Burke Road, Camberwell, Victoria, 3124
>> AUSTRALIA
>> http://www.sgi.com/support/**services<http://www.sgi.com/support/services>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**-
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lustre-discuss mailing list
> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss-lustre.org/attachments/20130626/4b582a32/attachment.htm>
More information about the lustre-discuss
mailing list