<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi,<br>
<br>
As we are using a very similar hardware and usage as Mark (Dell
poweredge hosts, Dell Equallogic SAN, iSCSI, and tons of LUNs for
all those VMs), I'm jumping into this thread.<br>
<br>
Le 12/01/2017 à 16:29, Yaniv Kaul a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJgorsZaZOk6yaqH7mQH5bXRkegvLN_3pmGZ6J53TEwXtdnmvQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
<div>While it's a bit of a religious war on what is
preferred with iSCSI - network level bonding (LACP) or
multipathing on the iSCSI level, I'm on the multipathing
side. The main reason is that you may end up easily using
just one of the paths in a bond - if your policy is not
set correct on how to distribute connections between the
physical links (remember that each connection sticks to a
single physical link. So it really depends on the hash
policy and even then - not so sure). With iSCSI
multipathing you have more control - and it can also be
determined by queue depth, etc.</div>
<div>(In your example, if you have SRC A -> DST 1 and SRC
B -> DST 1 (as you seem to have), both connections may
end up on the same physical NIC.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-GB">
<div class="m_7631641247395573674WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">If
we reduce the number of storage domains, we reduce
the number of devices and therefore the number of
LVM Physical volumes that appear in Linux correct?
At the moment each connection results in a Linux
device which has its own queue. We have some
guests with high IO loads on their device whilst
others are low. All the storage domain / datastore
sizing guides we found seem to imply it’s a
trade-off between ease of management (i.e not
having millions of domains to manage), IO
contention between guests on a single large
storage domain / datastore and possible wasted
space on storage domains. If you have further
information on recommendations, I am more than
willing to change things as this problem is making
our environment somewhat unusable at the moment. I
have hosts that I can’t bring online and therefore
reduced resiliency in clusters. They used to work
just fine but the environment has grown over the
last year and we also upgraded the Ovirt version
from 3.6 to 4.x. We certainly had other problems,
but host activation wasn’t one of them and it’s a
problem that’s driving me mad.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would say that each path has its own device (and
therefore its own queue). So I'd argue that you may want
to have (for example) 4 paths to each LUN or perhaps more
(8?). For example, with 2 NICs, each connecting to two
controllers, each controller having 2 NICs (so no SPOF and
nice number of paths).</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Here, one key point I'm trying (to no avail) to discuss for years
with Redhat people, and either I did not understood, either I wasn't
clear enough, or Redhat people answered me they owned no Equallogic
SAN to test it, is :<br>
My (and maybe many others) Equallogic SAN has two controllers, but
is publishing only *ONE* virtual ip address.<br>
On one of our other EMC SAN, publishing *TWO* ip addresses, which
can be published in two different subnets, I fully understand the
benefits and working of multipathing (and even in the same subnet,
our oVirt setup is happily using multipath).<br>
<br>
But on one of our oVirt setup using the Equallogic SAN, we have no
choice but point our hosts iSCSI interfaces to one single SAN ip, so
no multipath here.<br>
<br>
At this point, we saw no other mean than using bonding mode 1 to
reach our SAN, which is terrible for storage experts.<br>
<br>
<br>
To come back to Mark's story, we are still using 3.6.5 DCs and
planning to upgrade.<br>
Reading all this is making me delay this step.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Nicolas ECARNOT<br>
</body>
</html>