But the throughput would be higher when using a switch, would it? It's
still just 1Gbit
frank
On 11/22/2018 07:34 PM, Mark Schouten wrote:
Other than limited throughput, I can’t think of a problem. But limited
throughput might cause unforeseen situations.
Mark Schouten
Op 22 nov. 2018 om 19:30 heeft Frank Thommen <[email protected]>
het volgende geschreven:
Please excuse, if this is too basic, but after reading
https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Cluster_Manager I wondered, if the
cluster/corosync network could be built by directly connected network
interfaces. I.e not like this:
+-------+
| pve01 |----------+
+-------+ |
|
+-------+ +----------------+
| pve02 |-----| network switch |
+-------+ +----------------+
|
+-------+ |
| pve03 |----------+
+-------+
but like this:
+-------+
| pve01 |---+
+-------+ |
| |
+-------+ |
| pve02 | |
+-------+ |
| |
+-------+ |
| pve03 |---+
+-------+
(all connections 1Gbit, there are currently not plans to extend over three
nodes)
I can't see any drawback in that solution. It would remove one layer of
hardware dependency and potential spof (the switch). If we don't trust the
interfaces, we might be able to configure a second network with the three
remaining interfaces.
Is such a "direct-connection" topology feasible? Recommended? Strictly not
recommended?
I am currently just planning and thinking and there is no cluster (or even a
PROXMOX server) in place.
Cheers
frank
_______________________________________________
pve-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user
_______________________________________________
pve-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user
--
Frank Thommen | HD-HuB / DKFZ Heidelberg
| [email protected]
| MMK: +49-6221-54-3637 (Mo-Mi, Fr)
| IPMB: +49-6221-54-5823 (Do)
_______________________________________________
pve-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user
