cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrija Panic <andrija.pa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Physical network design options - which crime to comit
Date Tue, 30 Dec 2014 18:51:42 GMT
Somesh, thx - I understand that - one more question, since you guys are
arround :)

The primary storage network - I unnderstand how to separate that from
management networks on the host (having separate NIC/vlan/IP inside each
hypervisor host, etc) - but as far as I know, the SSVM doesnt have a NIC
that goes directly into the Pimary storage network, just into management -
does this mean, that the Primary storage network needs to be
reachable/routable from Management network (so SSVM uses "Reserved System
Gateway" to actually reach Primary storage network, through Management
network) ?
SSVM needs to reach Primary storage somehow...

Thx

On 30 December 2014 at 19:29, Somesh Naidu <Somesh.Naidu@citrix.com> wrote:

> Sorry, I was out on holidays :)
>
> I guess that should work. Just know that Primary traffic is hypervisor to
> storage and Secondary traffic is SSVM/Mgmt to storage. Cloudstack generally
> doesn't consider primary storage in its architecture design as it mostly
> relies on recommendation from the hypervisor vendors.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrija Panic [mailto:andrija.panic@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 5:59 PM
> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Physical network design options - which crime to comit
>
> 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.Naidu@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> > Actually, I would highly consider nic bonding for storage network if
> > possible.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrija Panic [mailto:andrija.panic@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 4:42 PM
> > To: dev@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.Naidu@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.panic@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 10:06 AM
> > > To: users@cloudstack.apache.org; dev@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
> > >
> >
>



-- 

Andrija Panić

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message