cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Mezentsev <...@soleks.com>
Subject Re: XenServer bond question
Date Tue, 30 Aug 2016 23:36:33 GMT
  LACP provide load-balancing based on hash of source+destination MAC  
addresses. Also on the linux end (not sure about XS) you can configure  
hash based on tcp port. Hash will be the same for one stream, it will  
be the same for any pair of src+dst MAC addresses, so you'll never get  
balanced on 2 NICs traffic between 2 servers. Only one nic will be  
utilized all the time. Another pair of servers will be utilizing  
another NIC (but it's maybe and really depends on hashing algorithm).

Technically i have pretty much the same network layout:
1) 2 NICs - mgmt
2) 2 NICs - VMs
3) 3 NICs - secondary storage
4) fiber channel - primary storage

Throughput is not fantastic, but it covers all my needs. On the other  
hand i can shutdown (lose) 50 % of my network equipment but will be  
online.

> Mmm... LACP provide load balancing so I should have 2 channel with 1 Gbps
> throughput...
> In fact, running this command from an XS server, I'm expecting to see both
> NIC "working":
>
> time dd if=/dev/zero of=/var/run/sr-mount/UUID/testfile bs=4k count=300000
>
> But I see only 1 NIC with high traffic, the second one is in complete
> standby!
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Marty Godsey <marty@gonsource.com> wrote:
>
>> LACP does not provide more throughput but does provide more bandwidth.
>> Basically if you have two 1G NICs in an LACP bond, you will not get a
>> stream faster than 1G.. However, since you are not load balancing, you can
>> have MORE 1Gb streams.
>>
>> So what your seeing is normal.
>>
>> Also do a ovs-vsctl list port and a xe bond-list params=all to make sure
>> your bonds are negotiating properly.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Marty Godsey
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alessandro Caviglione [mailto:c.alessandro@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 4:02 PM
>> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: XenServer bond question
>>
>> Hi guys,
>> pheraps I should post this question on Citrix forum but I think that here
>> I can find a more "practical" answer based on similar infrastructure. :)
>> I've a CS 4.6 with XS 6.2 clusters and here's my network config:
>>
>> - Management + Storage: 2 NIC LACP
>> - Guest: 2 NIC LACP
>> - Public: 2 NIC LACP
>>
>> All the "2 NIC" goes to a 2 stack switches with LACP configured.
>> Now, here (
>> http://support.citrix.com/servlet/KbServlet/download/
>> 38321-102-714737/XenServer-6.5.0_Administrators%20Guide.pdf)
>> I see:
>>
>> [...]Management interfaces
>>
>> You can bond a management interface to another NIC so that the second NIC
>> provides failover for management traffic. Although configuring a LACP link
>> aggregation bond provides load balancing for management traffic,
>> active-active NIC bonding does not.[...]
>>
>> Ok, great, this is exactly what I need to have.
>>
>> My issue is: in all XS I see only one NIC to make traffic during Storage
>> Migration, I'm expecting that with LACP I see both NIC to make traffic, but
>> this does not happen.
>>
>> Do you have any experience on this topic?
>> Since we're migrating to XS6.5 adding a new cluster and moving VM, do you
>> have a better NIC configuration to suggest?
>>
>> Thank you very much!
>
>  
  Daniel Mezentsev, founder
(+1) 604 313 8592.
Soleks Data Group.
Shaping the clouds.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, 8-Bit, 0 bytes)
View raw message