Hi Tim, thanks for jumping in. This is KVM in my case... Any more opinios highly appreciated :) Cheers
Sent from Google Nexus 4 On Dec 28, 2014 1:18 AM, "Tim Mackey" <tmac...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think anyone questioned the hypervisor. For XenServer, that answer > could sway the design > On Dec 27, 2014 6:26 PM, "Andrija Panic" <andrija.pa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thx Tejas will consider doing so. > > Cheers > > > > Sent from Google Nexus 4 > > On Dec 27, 2014 4:34 PM, "Tejas Sheth" <tshet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > it would be batter to seprage primary and secondary traffic with > seprate > > > VLANs. If you are using latest CNA adepter then you can seprate traffic > > by > > > deviding physical 10G nics with seprate vNICs > > > > > > 1) vNIC 1 : 6G for primary storage > > > 2) vNIC 2: 2G for secondary storage > > > 3) vNIC 3: 2G Guset VM traffic > > > > > > this will be hardcoded to CNA adapter on hardware level and hypervisor > > > will view as physical NICs so no need to worry about impact on primary > > > storage traffic. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Tejas > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 4:28 AM, Andrija Panic < > andrija.pa...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On storage nodes - yes definitively will do it. > > > > > > > > One finall advice/opinion please...? > > > > > > > > On compute nodes, since one 10G will be shared by both primary and > > > > secondary traffic - would you separate that on 2 different VLANs and > > then > > > > implement some QoS i.e. guarantie 8Gb/s for primary traffic vlan, or > > i.e. > > > > limit sec.storage vlan to i.e. 2Gb/s. Or just simply let them compete > > for > > > > the traffic? In afraid secondary traffic my influence or completely > > > > overweight primary traffic if no QoS implemented... > > > > > > > > Sorry for borring you with details. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Sent from Google Nexus 4 > > > > On Dec 26, 2014 11:51 PM, "Somesh Naidu" <somesh.na...@citrix.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Actually, I would highly consider nic bonding for storage network > if > > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Andrija Panic [mailto:andrija.pa...@gmail.com] > > > > > Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 4:42 PM > > > > > To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org > > > > > Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org > > > > > Subject: RE: Physical network design options - which crime to comit > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Somesh, first option also seems most logical to me. > > > > > > > > > > I guess you wouldn't consider doing nic bonding and then vlans with > > > some > > > > > QoS based on vlans on switch level? > > > > > > > > > > Thx again > > > > > > > > > > Sent from Google Nexus 4 > > > > > On Dec 26, 2014 9:48 PM, "Somesh Naidu" <somesh.na...@citrix.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I generally prefer to keep the storage traffic separate. Reason > is > > > that > > > > > > storage performance (provision templates to primary, snapshots, > > copy > > > > > > templates, etc) significantly impact end user experience. In > > > addition, > > > > it > > > > > > also helps isolate network issues when troubleshooting. > > > > > > > > > > > > So I'd go for one of the following in that order: > > > > > > Case I > > > > > > 1G = mgmt network (only mgmt) > > > > > > 10G = Primary and Secondary storage traffic > > > > > > 10G = Guest and Public traffic > > > > > > > > > > > > Case II > > > > > > 10G = Primary and Secondary storage traffic > > > > > > 10G = mgmt network, Guest and Public traffic > > > > > > > > > > > > Case III > > > > > > 10G = mgmt network, Primary and Secondary storage traffic > > > > > > 10G = Guest and Public traffic > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Andrija Panic [mailto:andrija.pa...@gmail.com] > > > > > > Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 10:06 AM > > > > > > To: users@cloudstack.apache.org; d...@cloudstack.apache.org > > > > > > Subject: Physical network design options - which crime to comit > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm designing some stuff - and wondering which crime to commit - > I > > > > have 2 > > > > > > posible scenarios in my head > > > > > > I have folowing NICs available on compute nodes: > > > > > > 1 x 1G NIC > > > > > > 2 x 10G NIC > > > > > > > > > > > > I was wondering which approach would be better, as I', thinking > > > about 2 > > > > > > possible sollutions at the moment, maybe 3. > > > > > > > > > > > > *First scenario:* > > > > > > > > > > > > 1G = mgmt network (only mgmt) > > > > > > 10G = Primary and Secondary storage traffic > > > > > > 10G = Guest and Public traffic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Second scenario* > > > > > > > > > > > > 1G = not used at all > > > > > > 10G = mgmt,primary,secondary storage > > > > > > 10G = Guest and Public > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And possibly a 3rd scenario: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1G = not used at all > > > > > > 10G = mgmt+primary storage > > > > > > 10G = secondary storage, guest,public network > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I could continue here with different scenarios - but I'm > wondering > > if > > > > 1G > > > > > > dedicated for mgmt would make sense - I know it is "better" to > have > > > it > > > > > > dedicated if possible, but folowing "KISS" and knowing it's > > extremely > > > > > light > > > > > > weight traffic - I was thinkin puting everything on 2 x 10G > > > interfaces. > > > > > > > > > > > > Any opinions are most welcome. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrija Panić > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
