[Lustre-discuss] Lustre over two TCP interfaces

Alfonso Pardo alfonso.pardo at ciemat.es
Wed Jun 26 23:58:11 PDT 2013

I would have high-availability  if I have a bonding mode 0,1 or 2. But I have LACP bonding attached to the same switch, if I loose a switch, my OSS will be down.

From: Indivar Nair 
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 8:30 AM
To: Alfonso Pardo 
Cc: Michael Shuey ; lustre-discuss 
Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] Lustre over two TCP interfaces

Then follow the instructions in my earlier mail.

No need to have bond0 and bond1.

You will achieve high-availability even with one bonded interface.


Indivar Nair

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Alfonso Pardo <alfonso.pardo at ciemat.es> wrote:

  Yes I have two swtiches, one to the bond0 interface and other switch to the second bond1 interface.

  From: Indivar Nair 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 8:05 PM
  To: Alfonso Pardo 
  Cc: Michael Shuey ; WC-Discuss ; lustre-discuss 
  Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] Lustre over two TCP interfaces

  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:


      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
      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.



        *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> ; 'Michael Shuey'
        <mailto:shuey at purdue.edu>
        *Cc:* 'WC-Discuss' <mailto:WC-Discuss.Migration at intel.com> ;
        mailto: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>]
        *Sent: *Tuesday, June 25, 2013 07:23 AM Central Standard Time
        *To: *Michael Shuey
        *Cc: *WC-Discuss; 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>
        *Cc:* lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
        <mailto:lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org> ; WC-Discuss
        <mailto: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>> wrote:

            hello friends,
            I need to comunicate my OSS by two ethernet TCP interfaces: eth0 and
            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>:
            ( <>)
            npeer 0 nroute 2
            sa-d4-01.ceta-ciemat.es <http://sa-d4-01.ceta-ciemat.es>:
            ( <>)
            npeer 0 nroute 0
            But, the clients only can communicate with the first interface:
            lctl ping
            12345-0 at lo
            12345- at tcp
            lctl ping
            failed to ping 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 <mailto:Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>

      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

    Lustre-discuss mailing list
    Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss-lustre.org/attachments/20130627/548bf95a/attachment.htm>

More information about the lustre-discuss mailing list