Re: Re: Bonded network: "No route to host" between slaves
On Lu, 09 apr 12, 15:52:30, Bob Proulx wrote: > > Learning is good! I am fully supportive of gaining experience with > different configurations. > > In this case a configuration which might be more generally useful > would be a router configuration. Instead of bridging (or bonding) > different network cards together something which I often need to do is > to set up a route between them. (Windows calls this Internet > Sharing.) If you were trying different configurations for the > purposes of learning then I would definitely queue up a router > configuration. +1 > My favorite helper for this is Shorewall. It builds the iptables > rules from simpler rules. I like it. Others like other tools. Still > others like writing everything in small detail themselves. For > something that I think is useful to work through I would look through > this documentation and work through the examples there. > > http://www.shorewall.net/two-interface.htm +1 For extra points use the bridge interface for the "lan" side :) Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: Re: Bonded network: "No route to host" between slaves
> > Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi wrote: > > Bob Proulx wrote: > > > Is there some reason that you are choosing not to use a switch that > > > you haven't told us about? > > > > I have no reason other than I'm trying different network configurations to > > learn how to do different things. I already have established a network > > config using a switch that did all the things i described earlier, i > wanted > > to see is it was possible to make it work only using NICs. > > Learning is good! I am fully supportive of gaining experience with > different configurations. > > In this case a configuration which might be more generally useful > would be a router configuration. Instead of bridging (or bonding) > different network cards together something which I often need to do is > to set up a route between them. (Windows calls this Internet > Sharing.) If you were trying different configurations for the > purposes of learning then I would definitely queue up a router > configuration. > > My favorite helper for this is Shorewall. It builds the iptables > rules from simpler rules. I like it. Others like other tools. Still > others like writing everything in small detail themselves. For > something that I think is useful to work through I would look through > this documentation and work through the examples there. > Thanks, i'll make sure to do some experiments during this or the next week. > > http://www.shorewall.net/two-interface.htm > > Bob > As for the original problem, the bridge config you suggested works. I tested the connection speed and integrity by transferring a 1gb file several times between the different computers, this is the results i got: For bonded network: desktop 1 --> server: 399Mbit desktop 2 --> server: 387Mbit desktop 1 --> desktop 2: Host unreachable For bridged network: desktop 1 --> server: 834Mbit desktop 2 --> server: 832Mbit desktop 1 --> desktop 2: 390Mbit have a nice day.
Re: Re: Bonded network: "No route to host" between slaves
Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > Is there some reason that you are choosing not to use a switch that > > you haven't told us about? > > I have no reason other than I'm trying different network configurations to > learn how to do different things. I already have established a network > config using a switch that did all the things i described earlier, i wanted > to see is it was possible to make it work only using NICs. Learning is good! I am fully supportive of gaining experience with different configurations. In this case a configuration which might be more generally useful would be a router configuration. Instead of bridging (or bonding) different network cards together something which I often need to do is to set up a route between them. (Windows calls this Internet Sharing.) If you were trying different configurations for the purposes of learning then I would definitely queue up a router configuration. My favorite helper for this is Shorewall. It builds the iptables rules from simpler rules. I like it. Others like other tools. Still others like writing everything in small detail themselves. For something that I think is useful to work through I would look through this documentation and work through the examples there. http://www.shorewall.net/two-interface.htm Bob signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: Bonded network: "No route to host" between slaves
Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi wrote: > I have a question though: The server is connected to the internet via eth0 > (it gets IP from external DHCP server), will i be able to connect to the > br0 from the eth0? Yes. You didn't show that part of your configuration. I expect it will have a default gateway? Also, you included all of netmask, network, and broadcast lines in your configuration. Only the netmask is needed and the other two will be calculated from it. That is better because the machine will compute the correct numbers whereas including them redundantly open a mistake in calculation. Also less is simpler and simpler is better. > (br0 is going to consist of eth1 and eth2) interfaces > will then look: > > iface eth1 inet manual > iface eth2 inet manual > > auto br0 > iface br0 inet static > bridge_ports eth1 eth2 > address 10.1.1.1 > broadcast 10.1.1.255 > netmask 255.255.255.0 > gateway 10.1.1.1 > bridge_stp off > bridge_fd 0 > bridge_maxwait 0 Again, please remove the broadcast line since it is redundant over the netmask line and is calculated from it. Here you have added a gateway that was not present before. If you are accessing the internet through eth0 as you said above them you should have a gateway for that interface eth0 and not here. Remove the gateway from the br0 configuration. I think something like this where I will use 'dhcp' for the eth0 configuration but it would of course be whatever you need for that. allow-hotplug eth0 iface eth0 inet dhcp iface eth1 inet manual iface eth2 inet manual auto br0 iface br0 inet static bridge_ports eth1 eth2 address 10.1.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_stp off bridge_fd 0 bridge_maxwait 0 > Is it possible to bridge with a third NIC (eth3)? Yes. If I recall correctly you can bridge up to 255 devices. > I'm just asking because i had planned to connect a third computer to > the server. This is possible but not optimal nor convenient. You are using a separate network interface card for each computer? Why? It be simpler to use a network switch. Instead of using a point to point interface for each computer I suggest that you use a network switch for the entire subnet. That is much simpler and easier and is the normal thing to do. Is there some reason that you are choosing not to use a switch that you haven't told us about? Bob signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: Bonded network: "No route to host" between slaves
To clarify what i want: I want to setup the connection so that server is able to "speak" to both desktops (and vice versa) AND the desktops should be able to "speak" with each other. You may be right that it is a bridge i need, i'm not that experienced in setting up networks. I will try the bridge suggestion as soon as i wake up tomorrow (server is not allowed external SSH yet and i don't have the server at home). I have a question though: The server is connected to the internet via eth0 (it gets IP from external DHCP server), will i be able to connect to the br0 from the eth0? (br0 is going to consist of eth1 and eth2) interfaces will then look: iface eth1 inet manual iface eth2 inet manual auto br0 iface br0 inet static bridge_ports eth1 eth2 address 10.1.1.1 broadcast 10.1.1.255 netmask 255.255.255.0 gateway 10.1.1.1 bridge_stp off bridge_fd 0 bridge_maxwait 0 Is it possible to bridge with a third NIC (eth3)? I'm just asking because i had planned to connect a third computer to the server. thanks, Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi wrote: > I have a problem that is driving me crazy. I have setup a micro cluster > with different programs that can interact with each other, the setup is as > follows: > > --bond0 (eth1)-->desktop1 (IP:10.1.1.200) > | > bond0 (eth2) > v > desktop2 (IP:10.1.1.190) > I may be wrong here but isn't what you want bridging not bonding? It seems that way to me. You are wanting to bridge two networks together. Bonding is when you share bandwidth between two network routes enabling either to be offline and communication still proceed. Bonding is used for performance, redundancy and high availability but uses redundant routes. You don't have redundant routes here. > bond0 consist of eth1 and eth2 connected with following config: > allow-hotplug bond0 > iface bond0 inet static > address 10.1.1.1 > netmask 255.255.255.0 > network 10.1.1.0 > broadcast 10.1.1.255 > slaves eth1 eth2 > bond-mode broadcast > bond-miimon 100 > bond-downdelay 200 > bond-updelay 200 > > has no problem connecting to both desktops, and vice versa, both > there i can not get a connection between the two desktops (iptables has > been disabled). I can't even ping from one desktop to the other, gives > error "Destination Host Unreachable" (ping works fine when i ping from > desktop to the server). Right. You want bridging, not bonding. At least that is what I think you want from reading the above description. I am going to proceed with a suggestion based upon that assumption. Instead of the above try this configuration: iface eth0 inet manual iface eth1 inet manual auto br0 iface br0 inet static address 10.1.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports eth0 bridge_stp off bridge_fd 0 bridge_maxwait 0 You may need to install bridge-utils first to get the tools: # apt-get install bridge-utils Bob
Re: Bonded network: "No route to host" between slaves
Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi wrote: > I have a problem that is driving me crazy. I have setup a micro cluster > with different programs that can interact with each other, the setup is as > follows: > > --bond0 (eth1)-->desktop1 (IP:10.1.1.200) > | > bond0 (eth2) > v > desktop2 (IP:10.1.1.190) I may be wrong here but isn't what you want bridging not bonding? It seems that way to me. You are wanting to bridge two networks together. Bonding is when you share bandwidth between two network routes enabling either to be offline and communication still proceed. Bonding is used for performance, redundancy and high availability but uses redundant routes. You don't have redundant routes here. > bond0 consist of eth1 and eth2 connected with following config: > allow-hotplug bond0 > iface bond0 inet static >address 10.1.1.1 >netmask 255.255.255.0 >network 10.1.1.0 >broadcast 10.1.1.255 >slaves eth1 eth2 >bond-mode broadcast >bond-miimon 100 >bond-downdelay 200 >bond-updelay 200 > > has no problem connecting to both desktops, and vice versa, both > there i can not get a connection between the two desktops (iptables has > been disabled). I can't even ping from one desktop to the other, gives > error "Destination Host Unreachable" (ping works fine when i ping from > desktop to the server). Right. You want bridging, not bonding. At least that is what I think you want from reading the above description. I am going to proceed with a suggestion based upon that assumption. Instead of the above try this configuration: iface eth0 inet manual iface eth1 inet manual auto br0 iface br0 inet static address 10.1.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports eth0 bridge_stp off bridge_fd 0 bridge_maxwait 0 You may need to install bridge-utils first to get the tools: # apt-get install bridge-utils Bob signature.asc Description: Digital signature
