|
Home > Archive > Data Storage > March 2007 > VIF load balancing
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
VIF load balancing
|
|
| Raju Mahala 2007-02-24, 7:12 pm |
| Anybody can suggest that which load balance should use at NearLine
R200 Filer.
IP Load balance or round robin ?
I feel in IP Load balance, trafic will not be balanced equally because
clients are very less.
Am I thinking in right direction or missing something. Please comment
on it
- Raju
| |
| Faeandar 2007-02-26, 7:12 pm |
| On 24 Feb 2007 12:43:44 -0800, "Raju Mahala" <rajumahala@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Anybody can suggest that which load balance should use at NearLine
>R200 Filer.
>IP Load balance or round robin ?
>
>I feel in IP Load balance, trafic will not be balanced equally because
>clients are very less.
>
>Am I thinking in right direction or missing something. Please comment
>on it
>
>- Raju
What is the problem you are trying to solve by using a VIF?
~F
| |
| Raju Mahala 2007-02-28, 1:13 pm |
| On Feb 27, 2:35 am, Faeandar <mr_casta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2007 12:43:44 -0800, "Raju Mahala" <rajumah...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> What is the problem you are trying to solve by using a VIF?
>
> ~F
OK, actually it was configured to get more network bandwidth. For last
some times I am getting lots of error in /etc/message files of primary
and secondary storage which stats "transfer aborted due to network
error. When I checked with "vif stat vif1 2" then found that packets
are not balanced out properly on both the ports.
I feel this errror may be due to more network load so I am trying to
balance it out accross the ports in vif. But as there are limited
clients for secondary storage so network load is not balanced on both
port based on "IP load balance" so I am thinking to make it round
robin. But round robin may create retransmission but not sure it is
for Secondary storage also ?
-Raju
| |
| Faeandar 2007-03-01, 1:14 am |
| On 28 Feb 2007 08:41:13 -0800, "Raju Mahala" <rajumahala@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Feb 27, 2:35 am, Faeandar <mr_casta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>OK, actually it was configured to get more network bandwidth. For last
>some times I am getting lots of error in /etc/message files of primary
>and secondary storage which stats "transfer aborted due to network
>error. When I checked with "vif stat vif1 2" then found that packets
>are not balanced out properly on both the ports.
>I feel this errror may be due to more network load so I am trying to
>balance it out accross the ports in vif. But as there are limited
>clients for secondary storage so network load is not balanced on both
>port based on "IP load balance" so I am thinking to make it round
>robin. But round robin may create retransmission but not sure it is
>for Secondary storage also ?
>
>-Raju
What type of switch are you using? If you use cisco you have to have
the ports channeled. Other vendors probably call it trunking or
whatever but you still need the switch to know that both ports are for
the same MAC.
This is above and beyond the VIF creation on the filer.
~F
| |
| Raju Mahala 2007-03-01, 1:12 pm |
| On Mar 1, 8:05 am, Faeandar <mr_casta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2007 08:41:13 -0800, "Raju Mahala" <rajumah...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What type of switch are you using? If you use cisco you have to have
> the ports channeled. Other vendors probably call it trunking or
> whatever but you still need the switch to know that both ports are for
> the same MAC.
>
> This is above and beyond the VIF creation on the filer.
>
> ~F- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
We use cisco switch and channeleing is well in plance thats why
incoming packets are balanced and even out going packets are balance
at some extent but not very much balance. As I know port which is used
to send outgoing packet is selected based on below formulla if IP load
balance mechanisim is choosen.
("last byte of soure IP" XOR "last byte of destination IP" ) % no. of
links in vif
So according to this formula it is clear that outgoing packets will be
as much balanced as much client acces the filer. But in the case of
Near storage which is only used for snapvault from primary filer it
seem this mechanism is not best suited and hence I feel round robin
shoul be used but not sure about consequences of round robin. Round
robin is recommended fro primary filer as retransmission may increase
but same will be the case for near line storage which is used only for
snapvault from primary storage.
- Raju
| |
| Faeandar 2007-03-02, 1:14 am |
| On 1 Mar 2007 09:52:52 -0800, "Raju Mahala" <rajumahala@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Mar 1, 8:05 am, Faeandar <mr_casta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>We use cisco switch and channeleing is well in plance thats why
>incoming packets are balanced and even out going packets are balance
>at some extent but not very much balance. As I know port which is used
>to send outgoing packet is selected based on below formulla if IP load
>balance mechanisim is choosen.
>("last byte of soure IP" XOR "last byte of destination IP" ) % no. of
>links in vif
>So according to this formula it is clear that outgoing packets will be
>as much balanced as much client acces the filer. But in the case of
>Near storage which is only used for snapvault from primary filer it
>seem this mechanism is not best suited and hence I feel round robin
>shoul be used but not sure about consequences of round robin. Round
>robin is recommended fro primary filer as retransmission may increase
>but same will be the case for near line storage which is used only for
>snapvault from primary storage.
>
>- Raju
Ah, my mistake. I now understand what you are asking and I do not
know the answer.
Sorry.
~F
|
|
|
|
|