Gluster users - Jan 2017 - gluster and multipath

On 24/01/2017 10:23 PM, Alessandro Briosi wrote:
> Ok so having 2 bonds 1 attached to each switch would work. Though I 
> still cannot get how to make gluster use both links (or at least one 
> with active/passive).
> Should I work on RRDNS and keepalived? Or use some bonding of a bond 
> within the 2 switches with balance-rr in this case?
> How do other implement this?
I *think* you can have the 4 nics on the one bond on a node with two 
through one switch, two through the other. Might be worth asking on the 
proxmox list as well.

That way just one interface for gluster to use. I don't think it would 
work with LACP though.

-- 

Lindsay Mathieson

> On 24 Jan 2017, at 13:48, Lindsay Mathieson <lindsay.mathieson at
gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 24/01/2017 10:23 PM, Alessandro Briosi wrote:
>> Ok so having 2 bonds 1 attached to each switch would work. Though I
still cannot get how to make gluster use both links (or at least one with
active/passive).
>> Should I work on RRDNS and keepalived? Or use some bonding of a bond
within the 2 switches with balance-rr in this case?
>> How do other implement this?
> 
> I *think* you can have the 4 nics on the one bond on a node with two
through one switch, two through the other. Might be worth asking on the proxmox
list as well.
> 
> That way just one interface for gluster to use. I don't think it would
work with LACP though.
It would work with traditional LACP if both switches are manageable and in the
same stack. If switches are dumbs (ie only L2 or not stackable), I think there
is a Linux bonding mode that can do the work, but well I would stay away from
such configuration that seems to me a bit hazardous.

Cheers

?
C?dric Lemarchand

> 
> -- 
> 
> Lindsay Mathieson
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users