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.
Cheers, Indivar Nair On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Alfonso Pardo <alfonso.pa...@ciemat.es>wrote: > Yes I have two swtiches, one to the bond0 interface and other switch to > the second bond1 interface. > > > > *From:* Indivar Nair <indivar.n...@techterra.in> > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 26, 2013 8:05 PM > *To:* Alfonso Pardo <alfonso.pa...@ciemat.es> > *Cc:* Michael Shuey <sh...@purdue.edu> ; > WC-Discuss<wc-discuss.migrat...@intel.com>; > lustre-discuss <lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org> > *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 <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 <%2B61%20417%20746%20452> >>> Phone: +61 3 9963 1900, Fax: +61 3 9963 1902 <%2B61%203%209963%201902> >>> 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