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

Inbound traffic from any particular portal will go to a single slave.
But there is no guarantee that the traffic will then be properly

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to