Re: [ceph-users] Adding second interface to storage network - issue

Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Adding second interface to storage network - issue Yes that should work. Though I'd be weary of increasing the MTU to 9000 as this could introduce other issues. Jumbo Frames don't provide a very significant performance increase so I wouldn't recommend it unless you have a v

Re: [ceph-users] Adding second interface to storage network - issue

Ok thanks... I have read that Ceph prefers jumbo frames and when I noticed that the switch ports that two of the nodes were connected to showed high RX errors due to packet sizes over 1500 even though none of the nodes were configured for jumbo frames. But at this point I am happy with the

Re: [ceph-users] Adding second interface to storage network - issue

Yes that should work. Though I'd be weary of increasing the MTU to 9000 as this could introduce other issues. Jumbo Frames don't provide a very significant performance increase so I wouldn't recommend it unless you have a very good reason to make the change. If you do want to go down that path I'd

Re: [ceph-users] Adding second interface to storage network - issue

Hi John, Thanks that makes sense... So I take it if I use the same IP for the bond, I shouldn't run into the issues I ran into last night? Cheers, Mike On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 9:55 AM, John Petrini wrote: > For redundancy I would suggest bonding the interfaces using

Re: [ceph-users] Adding second interface to storage network - issue

For redundancy I would suggest bonding the interfaces using LACP that way both ports are combined under the same interface with the same IP. They will both send and receive traffic and if one link goes down the other continues to work. The ports will need to be configured for LACP on the switch as