On Jun 23, 12:41 pm, Christopher Barry <christopher.ba...@rackwareinc.com> wrote: > > Absolutely correct. What I was looking for were comparisons of the > methods below, and wanted subnet stuff out of the way while discussing > that.
Ah, I see. Well, that is fine (even necessary) for the port bonding approach, but for multi-path I/O (whether device-mapper or proprietary) it will probably not do what you expect. When Linux has two interfaces on the same subnet, in my experience it tends to send all traffic through just one of them. So you will definitely want to split up the subnets before testing multi-path I/O. > Here I do not understand your reasoning. My understanding was I would > need a session per iface to each portal to survive a controller port > failure. If this assumption is wrong, please explain. I may have misunderstood your use of "portal". I was thinking in the RFC 3720 sense of "IP address". So you have four IP addresses on the RAID, and four IP addresses on the Linux host. You have made all of your SCSI target devices visible as logical units on all four addresses on the RAID. So to get fully redundant paths, you only need to connect each of the four IP addresses on the Linux host to a single IP address on the RAID. (So Linux will see each logical unit four times.) I thought you were saying you would initiate a connection from each host IP address to every RAID IP address (16 connections). That would cause each each LU to show up 16 times, thus being harder to manage, with no advantages in performance or fault-tolerance. But now it sounds like that is not what you meant :-). > this is also something I am uncertain about. For instance, in the > balance-alb mode, each slave will communicate with a remote ip > consistently. In the case of two slaves, and two portals how would the > traffic be apportioned? would it write to both simultaneously? could > this corrupt the disk in any way? would it always only use a single > slave/portal? This is what I meant by being "at the mercy of the load balancing performed by the bonding". If I understand the description of "balance-alb" correctly, outgoing traffic will be more-or-less round-robin; it tries to balance the load among the available interfaces, without worrying about keeping packets in order. If packets wind up out of order, TCP will put them back in order at the other end, possibly (probably?) at the cost of some performance. Inbound traffic from any particular portal will go to a single slave. But there is no guarantee that the traffic will then be properly balanced. The advantage of multipath I/O is that it can balance the traffic at the level of SCSI commands. I suspect this will be both faster and more consistent, but again, I have not actually tried using bonding. - Pat -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "open-iscsi" group. To post to this group, send email to open-is...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to open-iscsi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-iscsi?hl=en.