[DRBD-user] Directly connected GigE ports bonded together no switch

2011-08-09 Thread Herman
Sorry if this is covered elsewhere. I know the Linux Bonding FAQ is supposed to talk about this, but I didn't see anything specific in it on what parameters to use. Basically, I want to bond two GigE ports between two servers which are connected with straight cables with no switch and use them fo

Re: [DRBD-user] Directly connected GigE ports bonded together no switch

2011-08-09 Thread Andreas Kurz
On 2011-08-09 16:46, Herman wrote: > Sorry if this is covered elsewhere. > > I know the Linux Bonding FAQ is supposed to talk about this, but I > didn't see anything specific in it on what parameters to use. > > Basically, I want to bond two GigE ports between two servers which are > connected wi

Re: [DRBD-user] Directly connected GigE ports bonded together no switch

2011-08-09 Thread Andreas Hofmeister
On 09.08.2011 16:46, Herman wrote: Also, right now I'm using "mode=active-backup". Would one of the other modes allow higher throughput and still allow automatic failover and transparency to DRBD? Try round-robin in your situation, it is the only bonding mode that gives higher throughput f

Re: [DRBD-user] Directly connected GigE ports bonded together no switch

2011-08-10 Thread Herman
> On 2011-08-09 16:46, Herman wrote: > > Sorry if this is covered elsewhere. > > > > I know the Linux Bonding FAQ is supposed to talk about this, but I > > didn't see anything specific in it on what parameters to use. > > > > Basically, I want to bond two GigE ports between two servers which are

Re: [DRBD-user] Directly connected GigE ports bonded together no switch

2011-08-10 Thread Jake Smith
10, 2011 1:04:11 PM Subject: Re: [DRBD-user] Directly connected GigE ports bonded together no switch > On 2011-08-09 16:46, Herman wrote: > > Sorry if this is covered elsewhere. > > > > I know the Linux Bonding FAQ is supposed to talk about this, but I > > didn'

Re: [DRBD-user] Directly connected GigE ports bonded together no switch

2011-08-10 Thread Andreas Hofmeister
On 10.08.2011 19:04, Herman wrote: If this is the case, maybe arp monitoring is more reliable for direct connections since NIC failure (which may fail but still have link up) is more likely than cable failure? Maybe I don't have a good understanding of this. With switches in between, ARP monit

Re: [DRBD-user] Directly connected GigE ports bonded together no switch

2011-08-10 Thread Bart Coninckx
On 08/10/11 19:04, Herman wrote: On 2011-08-09 16:46, Herman wrote: Sorry if this is covered elsewhere. I know the Linux Bonding FAQ is supposed to talk about this, but I didn't see anything specific in it on what parameters to use. Basically, I want to bond two GigE ports between two servers

Re: [DRBD-user] Directly connected GigE ports bonded together no switch

2011-08-10 Thread Jake Smith
- Original Message - > From: "Bart Coninckx" > To: drbd-user@lists.linbit.com > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 3:34:48 PM > Subject: Re: [DRBD-user] Directly connected GigE ports bonded together no > switch > > On 08/10/11 19:04, Herman wrote: > &g

Re: [DRBD-user] Directly connected GigE ports bonded together no switch

2011-08-11 Thread Christian Balzer
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 17:20:12 -0400 (EDT) Jake Smith wrote: [Huge snip] > > > I tuned my MTU setting on the direct link bond to 9000 and saw a 10% > improvement on throughput. Negligible on latency though. > > I was getting consistent 180-185MB/s using the throughput testing script > in the DRB

Re: [DRBD-user] Directly connected GigE ports bonded together no switch

2011-08-12 Thread Jake Smith
- Original Message - > From: "Christian Balzer" > To: drbd-user@lists.linbit.com > Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 12:58:11 AM > Subject: Re: [DRBD-user] Directly connected GigE ports bonded together no > switch > > > On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 17:20:12 -0400