12:38 p.m.
If I am using a NIC on my host on the storage network to access storage
(NFS, iSCSI, Gluster, etc.), is there any issue with allowing VMs to be
assigned to it so they can access the same storage network?
(the VMs would have a NIC added specifically for this, of course)
Basically, unlike in VMware and Hyper-V, in oVirt can the same NIC be
used for host and VM access to the storage network?
Thanks! :-)
-Alan
5:25 p.m.
Alan,
We currently have all our nics in the same bond. So we have guest traffic, management,
and storage running over the same physical nics, but different vlans.
Hope this helps,
Patrick
On Jul 26, 2015, at 4:38 AM, Alan Murrell <lists(a)murrell.ca>
wrote:
If I am using a NIC on my host on the storage network to access storage
(NFS, iSCSI, Gluster, etc.), is there any issue with allowing VMs to be
assigned to it so they can access the same storage network?
(the VMs would have a NIC added specifically for this, of course)
Basically, unlike in VMware and Hyper-V, in oVirt can the same NIC be
used for host and VM access to the storage network?
Thanks! :-)
-Alan
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
9:34 a.m.
Hi Patrick,
On 27/07/2015 7:25 AM, Patrick Russell wrote:
We currently have all our nics in the same bond. So we have guest
traffic, management, and storage running over the same physical
nics, but different vlans.
Which bond mode do you use, out of curiousity? Not sure I would go to
this extreme, though; I would still want the physical isolation of
Management vs. network/VM traffic vs. storage, but just curious which
bonding mode?
Modes 1 and 5 would seem to be the best ones, as far as maximising
throughput. I read an article just the other day where a guy detailed
how he bonded four 1Gbit NICs in mode 1 (with each on a different VLAN)
and was able to achieve 320MB/s throughput to NFS storage.
As far as the storage question, I like to put other storage on the
network (smaller NAS devices, maybe SANs for other storage) and would
want the VMs to be bale to get at those. Being to use a NIC to carry VM
traffic for storage as well as for host access to storage would cut down
on the number of NICs I would need to have in each node.
-Alan
-Alan
8:41 a.m.
We just changed this up a little this week. We split our traffic into 2 bonds, 10GB mode 1
as follows:
Guest vlans, managment vlan (including some NFS storage) -> bond0
Migration layer 2 only vlan -> bond1
This allowed us to tweak the vdsm.conf to speed up migrations without impacting management
and guest traffic. As a result we’re currently pushing about 5Gb on bond1 when we do live
migrations between hosts.
-Patrick
On Jul 28, 2015, at 1:34 AM, Alan Murrell <lists(a)murrell.ca>
wrote:
Hi Patrick,
On 27/07/2015 7:25 AM, Patrick Russell wrote:
> We currently have all our nics in the same bond. So we have guest
> traffic, management, and storage running over the same physical
> nics, but different vlans.
Which bond mode do you use, out of curiousity? Not sure I would go to this extreme,
though; I would still want the physical isolation of Management vs. network/VM traffic vs.
storage, but just curious which bonding mode?
Modes 1 and 5 would seem to be the best ones, as far as maximising throughput. I read an
article just the other day where a guy detailed how he bonded four 1Gbit NICs in mode 1
(with each on a different VLAN) and was able to achieve 320MB/s throughput to NFS
storage.
As far as the storage question, I like to put other storage on the network (smaller NAS
devices, maybe SANs for other storage) and would want the VMs to be bale to get at those.
Being to use a NIC to carry VM traffic for storage as well as for host access to storage
would cut down on the number of NICs I would need to have in each node.
-Alan
-Alan
9 a.m.
Actually, I have to make a correction to my earlier statement... the
article I referred to was using bond mode 0 (bond-rr) and not mode 1 as
I had indicated.
I know mode 0 is not supported in the oVirt interface as one of the
official options (but can be specified under "custom") and probably is
not typically recommended, but if setup correctly, it seems it would be
perfect for the storage (and migration?) network/bonds?
-Alan
On 30/07/2015 10:41 PM, Patrick Russell wrote:
We just changed this up a little this week. We split our traffic into
2 bonds, 10GB mode 1 as follows:
Guest vlans, managment vlan (including some NFS storage) -> bond0
Migration layer 2 only vlan -> bond1
This allowed us to tweak the vdsm.conf to speed up migrations without impacting
management and guest traffic. As a result we’re currently pushing about 5Gb on bond1 when
we do live migrations between hosts.
-Patrick
> On Jul 28, 2015, at 1:34 AM, Alan Murrell <lists(a)murrell.ca> wrote:
>
> Hi Patrick,
>
> On 27/07/2015 7:25 AM, Patrick Russell wrote:
>> We currently have all our nics in the same bond. So we have guest
>> traffic, management, and storage running over the same physical
>> nics, but different vlans.
>
> Which bond mode do you use, out of curiousity? Not sure I would go to this extreme,
though; I would still want the physical isolation of Management vs. network/VM traffic vs.
storage, but just curious which bonding mode?
>
> Modes 1 and 5 would seem to be the best ones, as far as maximising throughput. I
read an article just the other day where a guy detailed how he bonded four 1Gbit NICs in
mode 1 (with each on a different VLAN) and was able to achieve 320MB/s throughput to NFS
storage.
>
> As far as the storage question, I like to put other storage on the network (smaller
NAS devices, maybe SANs for other storage) and would want the VMs to be bale to get at
those. Being to use a NIC to carry VM traffic for storage as well as for host access to
storage would cut down on the number of NICs I would need to have in each node.
>
> -Alan
>
>
> -Alan
>
3402
days inactive
3407
days old
4 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Alan Murrell -
Patrick Russell