Nate Pearlstein a écrit : > Which bonding method are you using? Has the performance always been > this way? Depending on which bonding type you are using and the network > hardware involved you might see the behavior you are describing. >
Hi, Here is our bonding configuration : On linux side : mode=4 - to use 802.3ad miimon=100 - to set the link check interval (ms) xmit_hash_policy=layer2+3 - to set XOR hashing method lacp_rate=fast - to set LCAPDU tx rate to request (slow=20s, fast=1s) Onethernet switch side, load balancing is configured as: # port-channel load-balance src-dst-mac thanks > > On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 16:27 +0200, Olivier Hargoaa wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> We have a cluster with lustre critical data. On this cluster there are >> three networks on each Lustre server and client : one ethernet network >> for administration (eth0), and two other ethernet networks configured in >> bonding (bond0: eth1 & eth2). On Lustre we get poor read performances >> and good write performances so we decide to modify Lustre network in >> order to see if problems comes from network layer. >> >> Currently Lustre network is bond0. We want to set it as eth0, then eth1, >> then eth2 and finally back to bond0 in order to compare performances. >> >> Therefore, we'll perform the following steps: we will umount the >> filesystem, reformat the mgs, change lnet options in modprobe file, >> start new mgs server, and finally modify our ost and mdt with >> tunefs.lustre with failover and mgs new nids using "--erase-params" and >> "--writeconf" options. >> >> We tested it successfully on a test filesystem but we read in the manual >> that this can be really dangerous. Do you agree with this procedure? Do >> you have some advice or practice on this kind of requests? What's the >> danger? >> >> Regards. >> > _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
