Thank you to all for your suggestions. I came here since only gluster was having issues to start. Ping and other networking services were showing everything fine, so I guess there is sth at gluster that does not like what I tried to do. Unfortunately I have this system in production and I cannot experiment. It was a customer request to add redundancy to the switch and I went with what I assumed would work. I guess I have to have the switches stacked, but the current ones do not support this. They are just simple managed switches.
Multiple IPs per peers could be a solution. I will search a little more and in case I have sth I will get back. On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:52 AM Strahil <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Alex, > > As per the following ( ttps:// > community.cisco.com/t5/switching/lacp-load-balancing-in-2-switches-part-of-3750-stack-switch/td-p/2268111 > ) your switches need to be stacked in order to support lacp with your setup. > Yet, I'm not sure if balance-alb will work with 2 separate switches - > maybe some special configuration is needed ?!? > As far as I know gluster can have multiple IPs matched to a single peer, > but I'm not sure if having 2 separate networks will be used as > active-backup or active-active. > > Someone more experienced should jump in. > > Best Regards, > Strahil Nikolov > On Feb 25, 2019 12:43, 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]> > 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 [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
