cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alessandro Caviglione <c.alessan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: XenServer bond question
Date Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:02:28 GMT
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!
>

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