Hi Jon,
In short "it depends...". Going by your hardware spec (only 1GBps NICs) I will
assume (please correct me if wrong) that this is a smaller environment / lab /
proof of concept? If so you won't see much of a benefit from option 2 since you
simply won't have that much secondary storage traffic going through to cause
noisy neighbour problems - hence my advice would be option 1) to give you
redundancy.
Option 2) would be at risk of no redundancy for management and storage (bad),
and would only make sense if you had guest VMs with high network IO. Even if
you had a lot of secondary storage traffic I would advise against this. If you
absolutely wanted to run secondary storage traffic separately I would run a
bond for management and primary storage and a NIC each for secondary and guest
traffic - but I would still say 1) is the better option.
Regards,
Dag Sonstebo
Cloud Architect
ShapeBlue
On 18/03/2019, 19:02, "Jon Marshall" <jms....@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
I have 4 1Gbps NICs in each compute node and was considering 2 deployment
options (Advanced network with Security Groups) -
1) 2 NICs bonded together and used for all storage and management and the
other 2 NIC bonded together and used for guest VM traffic.
2) 1 NIC or management and primary storage, 1 NIC for secondary storage
and the remaining 2 NICs bonded together for guest VM traffic.
Option 1 would give more redundancy but is there any benefit to separating
storage that would outweigh this ?
Or is there a better option I have overlooked.
Any advice much appreciated
dag.sonst...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
Amadeus House, Floral Street, London WC2E 9DPUK
@shapeblue
