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 <sh...@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.pa...@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@lists.lustre.**org<lustre-discuss@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:bri...@sgi.com> >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 26, 2013 1:09 AM >>> *To:* 'Alfonso Pardo' >>> <mailto:alfonso.pardo@ciemat.**es<alfonso.pa...@ciemat.es>> >>> ; 'Michael Shuey' >>> <mailto:sh...@purdue.edu> >>> *Cc:* 'WC-Discuss' >>> <mailto:WC-Discuss.Migration@**intel.com<wc-discuss.migrat...@intel.com>> >>> ; >>> mailto:lustre-discuss@lists.**lustre.org<lustre-discuss@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.pa...@ciemat.es >>> <mailto:alfonso.pardo@ciemat.**es <alfonso.pa...@ciemat.es>>] >>> *Sent: *Tuesday, June 25, 2013 07:23 AM Central Standard Time >>> *To: *Michael Shuey >>> *Cc: *WC-Discuss; >>> lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.**org<lustre-discuss@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:sh...@purdue.edu> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 25, 2013 2:14 PM >>> *To:* Alfonso Pardo >>> <mailto:alfonso.pardo@ciemat.**es<alfonso.pa...@ciemat.es> >>> > >>> *Cc:* lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.**org<lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org> >>> <mailto:lustre-discuss@lists.**lustre.org<lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org>> >>> ; WC-Discuss >>> <mailto:WC-Discuss.Migration@**intel.com<wc-discuss.migrat...@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.pa...@ciemat.es >>> <mailto:alfonso.pardo@ciemat.**es <alfonso.pa...@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@lo >>> 12345-192.168.11.15@tcp >>> lctl ping 192.168.11.35 >>> failed to ping 192.168.11.35@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@lists.lustre.**org >>> <Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org><mailto: >>> Lustre-discuss@lists.**lustre.org <Lustre-discuss@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: bri...@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@lists.lustre.org > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss