cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gabriel Beims Bräscher <gabrasc...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: XenServer bond question
Date Tue, 23 Aug 2016 15:22:25 GMT
Looking at the section 4.3.5.1. Active-Active Bonding from documentation of
the XenServer 6.5:

    "Management or storage traffic. Only one of the links (NICs) in the
bond is active and the other NICs remain
    unused unless traffic fails over to them. Configuring a management
interface or secondary interface on a
    bonded network provides resilience."


I think that you did all right. Unfortunatelly storage migration does not
benefit from Active/Active bonding.

2016-08-23 12:06 GMT-03:00 Gabriel Beims Bräscher <gabrascher@gmail.com>:

> Are you using Active/Passive bond? (This is the bonding where only one NIC
> carries the traffic, others NICs are there just in case the first fails; in
> this case is normal other NICs stay as standby.)
>
> XenServer provides support for both, Active/Passive and Active/Active (VM
> traffic balanced between bonded NICs).
>
> 2016-08-23 11:02 GMT-03:00 Alessandro Caviglione <c.alessandro@gmail.com>:
>
>> 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