Hi Alex, you have to use bond mode 4 (LACP - 802.3ad) in order to achieve redundancy of cables/ports/switches. I suppose this is what you want.
BR, Martin > On 25 Feb 2019, at 11:43, Alex K <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi All, > > I was asking if it is possible to have the two separate cables connected to > two different physical switched. When trying mode6 or mode1 in this setup > gluster was refusing to start the volumes, giving me "transport endpoint is > not connected". > > server1: cable1 ---------------- switch1 --------------------- server2: cable1 > | > server1: cable2 ---------------- switch2 --------------------- server2: cable2 > > Both switches are connected with each other also. This is done to achieve > redundancy for the switches. > When disconnecting cable2 from both servers, then gluster was happy. > What could be the problem? > > Thanx, > Alex > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:32 AM Jorick Astrego <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hi, > > We use bonding mode 6 (balance-alb) for GlusterFS traffic > > https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_gluster_storage/3.4/html/administration_guide/network4 > > <https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_gluster_storage/3.4/html/administration_guide/network4> > Preferred bonding mode for Red Hat Gluster Storage client is mode 6 > (balance-alb), this allows client to transmit writes in parallel on separate > NICs much of the time. > Regards, > > Jorick Astrego > On 2/25/19 5:41 AM, Dmitry Melekhov wrote: >> 23.02.2019 19:54, Alex K пишет: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have a replica 3 setup where each server was configured with a dual >>> interfaces in mode 6 bonding. All cables were connected to one common >>> network switch. >>> >>> To add redundancy to the switch, and avoid being a single point of failure, >>> I connected each second cable of each server to a second switch. This >>> turned out to not function as gluster was refusing to start the volume >>> logging "transport endpoint is disconnected" although all nodes were able >>> to reach each other (ping) in the storage network. I switched the mode to >>> mode 1 (active/passive) and initially it worked but following a reboot of >>> all cluster same issue appeared. Gluster is not starting the volumes. >>> >>> Isn't active/passive supposed to work like that? Can one have such >>> redundant network setup or are there any other recommended approaches? >>> >> >> Yes, we use lacp, I guess this is mode 4 ( we use teamd ), it is, no doubt, >> best way. >> >> >>> Thanx, >>> Alex >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gluster-users mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >>> <https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-users mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> <https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users> > > > > Met vriendelijke groet, With kind regards, > > Jorick Astrego > > Netbulae Virtualization Experts > Tel: 053 20 30 270 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Staalsteden 4-3A KvK 08198180 > Fax: 053 20 30 271 www.netbulae.eu <http://www.netbulae.eu/> 7547 TA > Enschede BTW NL821234584B01 > > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > <https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users>_______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
