[DRBD-user] GigE vs Bonded NICs
lists at creativeanvil.com
Thu Jul 5 18:19:44 CEST 2007
Graham Wood wrote:
>> My thought was that this may degrade the reliability of DRBD by it
>> not having its own private communication channel.
> If you were to bond the NICs, then there is certainly the possibility
> that other network access to the server could flood the network.
> However, it's unlikely that enough data could be thrown at them to
> flood a 2Gbps connection.
> Other problems relate to the data going out on the "public" network,
> and the possibility of an IP conflict causing other problems (e.g. if
> a 3rd machine on the network accidentally, or on purpose if someone
> was trying to "attack" your storage, was set to the same IP as one of
> the nodes).
Well, everything that has access to these servers is on the
192.168.1.0/24 network, and I'm the only one with any access, so,
something coming up on the same IP is possible, but unlikely. Good point
>> Or is bonding everything together so that it all can run at 2Gbps a
>> good idea?
> The extra bandwidth is only relevant if you are seeing a bottleneck
> within your system. If the filesystem is working well without any
> delays, then the additional bandwidth is not that relevant. The main
> advantage of bonding the interfaces would be the increased redundancy.
> By the sound of it, your system has single connections between each
> device in the environment - which means that a single NIC/cable
> failure could cause one of the servers to disappear.
> Personally I think the best answer would be to bond the interfaces
> (dual active), and then use VLANs on top to keep the traffic
> segregated. This gives you the additional redundancy and bandwidth,
> as well as still keeping the internal data separate from public data
> to prevent the accidents/attacks discussed above. The downside to
> this is that the switches would need to support it - and if you want
> to keep the networking redundant you would need a pair of pretty
> recent switches to support the dual active functionality - since with
> so few nodes involved, the various methods that don't need switch
> support probably wouldn't help much.
Yeah, one of the big benefits I saw to it was the redundancy it offered.
Thanks for the info.
Also, someone earlier asked if the disks could keep up with the 2Gbps -
from running hdparm -tT, it would appear they can outperform 1Gbps by
just a little, but could not keep up with 2Gbps. Again, I was very
interested in the redundancy offered, as well as the potential for a bit
more speed, but didn't want to have issues with too much different
traffic on the network.
Thanks again to all that responded.
More information about the drbd-user