9:01 a.m.
--Apple-Mail=_DA2D4197-7D78-42A9-87F6-96CF58AF637C
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=windows-1252
Thanks for your thoughts. The problem is, most of the data is =
transmitted from a couple apps to a couple systems. The chance of a =
hash collision (i.e., most of the data going out the same interface =
anyway) is quite high. On Solaris, I just created two physical =
interfaces each with their own IP, and bound the apps to the appropriate =
interfaces. This worked great. Imagine my surprise when I discovered =
this doesn=92t work on Linux and my crash course on weak host models.
Interesting that no one commented on my thought to just do the bonding =
at the guest level (and use balance-alb) instead of at the hypervisor =
level. Some ESXi experts I have talked to say this is actually the =
preferred method with ESXi and not to do it at the hypervisor level, as =
the VM knows better than VMware.
Or is the bonding mode issue with balance-alb/tlb more with the Linux =
TCP stack itself and not with oVirt and VDSM?
On Dec 30, 2014, at 4:34 AM, Nikolai Sednev <nsednev(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Mode 2 will do the job the best way for you in case of static LAG =
supported only at the switch's side, I'd advise using of =
xmit_hash_policy layer3+4, so you'll get better distribution for your =
DC.
=20
=20
Thanks in advance.
=20
Best regards,
Nikolai
____________________
Nikolai Sednev
Senior Quality Engineer at Compute team
Red Hat Israel
34 Jerusalem Road,
Ra'anana, Israel 43501
=20
Tel: +972 9 7692043
Mobile: +972 52 7342734
Email: nsednev(a)redhat.com
IRC: nsednev
=20
From: users-request(a)ovirt.org
To: users(a)ovirt.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:12:58 AM
Subject: Users Digest, Vol 39, Issue 173
=20
Send Users mailing list submissions to
users(a)ovirt.org
=20
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
users-request(a)ovirt.org
=20
You can reach the person managing the list at
users-owner(a)ovirt.org
=20
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Users digest..."
=20
=20
Today's Topics:
=20
1. Re: ??: bond mode balance-alb (Jorick Astrego)
2. Re: ??: bond mode balance-alb (Jorick Astrego)
3. HostedEngine Deployment Woes (Mikola Rose)
=20
=20
----------------------------------------------------------------------
=20
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 20:13:40 +0100
From: Jorick Astrego <j.astrego(a)netbulae.eu>
To: users(a)ovirt.org
Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] ??: bond mode balance-alb
Message-ID: <54A1A7E4.90308(a)netbulae.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8"
=20
=20
On 12/29/2014 12:56 AM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 12:39:45PM -0600, Blaster wrote:
>> On 12/23/2014 2:55 AM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
>>> Bug 1094842 - Bonding modes 0, 5 and 6 should be avoided for VM =
networks
>>>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D1094842#c0
>> Dan,
>>
>> What is bad about these modes that oVirt can't use them?
> I can only quote jpirko's workds from the link above:
>
> Do not use tlb or alb in bridge, never! It does not work, that's =
it.
The reason
> is it mangles source macs in xmit frames and arps. When it
is =
possible, just
> use mode 4 (lacp). That should be always possible because
all =
enterprise
> switches support that. Generally, for 99% of use cases, you
=
*should* use mode
> 4. There is no reason to use other modes.
>
This switch is more of an office switch and only supports part of the
802.3ad standard:
=20
=20
PowerConnect* *2824
=20
Scalable from small workgroups to dense access solutions, the 2824
offers 24-port flexibility plus two combo small?form?factor
pluggable (SFP) ports for connecting the switch to other =
networking
equipment located beyond the 100 m distance limitations of
copper
cabling.
=20
Industry-standard link aggregation adhering to IEEE 802.3ad
standards (static support only, LACP not supported)
=20
=20
So the only way to have some kind of bonding without buying more
expensive switches, is using balance-rr (mode=3D0), balance-xor =
(mode=3D2)
or broadcast (modes=3D3).
>> I just tested mode 4, and the LACP with Fedora 20 appears to not be
>> compatible with the LAG mode on my Dell 2824.
>>
>> Would there be any issues with bringing two NICS into the VM and =
doing
>> balance-alb at the guest level?
>>
Kind regards,
=20
Jorick Astrego
=20
=20
=20
Met vriendelijke groet, With kind regards,
=20
Jorick Astrego
=20
Netbulae Virtualization Experts=20
=20
----------------
=20
Tel: 053 20 30 270 info(a)netbulae.eu =
Staalsteden 4-3A
KvK 08198180
Fax: 053 20 30 271 www.netbulae.eu 7547 TA =
Enschede BTW NL821234584B01
>=20
> ----------------
>=20
>