cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dag Sonstebo <Dag.Sonst...@shapeblue.com>
Subject Re: Best use of server NICs.
Date Tue, 19 Mar 2019 09:29:00 GMT
Hi Jon,

In short "it depends...". Going by your hardware spec (only 1GBps NICs) I will assume (please
correct me if wrong) that this is a smaller environment / lab / proof of concept? If so you
won't see much of a benefit from option 2 since you simply won't have that much secondary
storage traffic going through to cause noisy neighbour problems - hence my advice would be
option 1) to give you redundancy. 

Option 2) would be at risk of no redundancy for management and storage (bad), and would only
make sense if you had guest VMs with high network IO. Even if you had a lot of secondary storage
traffic I would advise against this. If you absolutely wanted to run secondary storage traffic
separately I would run a bond for management and primary storage and a NIC each for secondary
and guest traffic - but I would still say 1) is the better option.

Regards,
Dag Sonstebo
Cloud Architect
ShapeBlue
 

On 18/03/2019, 19:02, "Jon Marshall" <jms.123@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

    
    I have  4 1Gbps NICs in each compute node and was considering 2 deployment options (Advanced
network with Security Groups) -
    
    1)  2 NICs bonded together and used for all storage and management and the other 2 NIC
bonded together and used for guest VM traffic.
    
    2)  1 NIC or management and primary storage, 1 NIC for secondary storage and the remaining
2 NICs bonded together for guest VM traffic.
    
    Option 1 would give more redundancy but is there any benefit to separating storage that
would outweigh this ?
    
    Or is there a better option I have overlooked.
    
    Any advice much appreciated
    
    
    


Dag.Sonstebo@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK
@shapeblue
  
 

Mime
View raw message