Great great great news for me ;-) Thank you Joshua -- I will try to set things up and use trunking
On Thu, 11 May 2006, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2006 at 11:03am, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote
> >Hi Sean,
> >On Thu, 11 May 2006, Sean Dilda wrote:
> >>>10.0.0.16/28 goes through eth1
> >>>the rest 10.0.0.0/24 can go through eth0 (as before)
> >>Instead of trying to put certain nodes on eth0 and certain nodes on eth1,
> >>have you considered bonding eth0 and
> >>eth1 together and letting traffic be spread across them like that? It
> >>should automatically balance traffic for
> >>you.
> >Please please please correct me if I am wrong but I thought that bonding
> >is done between targets, ie all the nodes has to have bonded interfaces
> >to take advantage of bonding?
> Nope.
> >or I can just bond 2 interfaces on the server and leave the rest of the
> >nodes connected with 1 interface to the switch?
> Yep. I'm doing this with my cluster -- the fileservers have a 2-port bonded
> interface to the switch, and all the
> nodes have just 1 connection. I did some quick testing and found that, for
> me, mode 0 bonding (balance-rr) worked
> better than mode 4 (802.3ad).
> >I have trunking (which is I believe is the same as bonding) option
> >in my DGS-1248T... may be I should RTFM for the beast...
> Trunking is the same as mode 0 bonding. I just defined 3 trunk groups (one
> for each of my fileservers), with each
> trunk group having 2 member ports.
--
.-.
=------------------------------ /v\ ----------------------------=
Keep in touch // \\ (yoh@|www.)onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko /( )\ ICQ#: 60653192
Linux User ^^-^^ [175555]
pgp0JnjdI9Rs6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
