Hi all, please excuse (and ignore) this mail when you think its not appropriate for this list or to faq.
We had our servers all connected via one gigabit switch and used bonds to have 2GB links for each of them (using drbd and pacemaker/corosync to keep our data distributed and services/machines up and running). As the switch constitudes a SPOF, we wanted to eliminate this and put a second GB-switch into the rack. Now I/we can't use the real bonding-modes anymore, only fail-over, tlb and alb. We don't really like the idea of fail-over because that means going back to 1GB data-rates. Using tlb we get nearly 2GBits total rates with 1GB per connection so that looks nice throughput wise. But for simple icmp-pings, 50-90% of pings are lost propably due to the switches re-learning the mac- addresses all the time. Also some tcp-connections seem to stall due to this. Not really a nice situation when desktop-virtualization and terminal servers are used in this scenario. My questions: Is there something obvious I missed in the above configuration?(*) Would it improve the situation stability- and performance-wise when I use bridges instead of bonds to connect to the switches and let stp do its job? Would that work with clusters and drbd? Obviously the cleanest solution would be to use two stackable switches and make sure that they still do their job when one fails. But that is out of question due to the prices attached to the switches... Thanks for your input on this and have a nice remaining weekend, Arnold (*) I haven't yet looked into the switches configuration if they have special options for such a scenario...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
