Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On 08/10/11 19:04, Herman wrote: >> On 2011-08-09 16:46, Herman wrote: >>> Sorry if this is covered elsewhere. >>> >>> I know the Linux Bonding FAQ is supposed to talk about this, but I >>> didn't see anything specific in it on what parameters to use. >>> >>> Basically, I want to bond two GigE ports between two servers which are >>> connected with straight cables with no switch and use them for DRBD. >>> >>> I tried the various bonding modes with "miimon=100", but none of them >>> worked. Say the eth1 ports on both servers were cabled together, and the >>> same for eth5. Then, I could create the bond with eth1 and eth5. >>> However, if I downed one of the ports on one server, say eth1, it would >>> failover on that server to eth5, but the other server would not >>> failover to eth5. >>> >>> Eventually, I decided to use "arp_interval=100" and "arp_ip_target=<ip >>> of other bonded pair>" instead of "miimon=100". This seems to work as >>> I expected, with the bond properly failing over. >>> >>> Is this the right way to do this kind of bonding? >>> >>> Also, right now I'm using "mode=active-backup". Would one of the other >>> modes allow higher throughput and still allow automatic failover and >>> transparency to DRBD? >> >> use balance-rr and e.g. miimon=100, that should do fine >> >> Regards, >> Andreas > > Andreas and Andi, > > Thanks for your suggestions to use balance-rr. I did try balance-rr > with miimon=100; however, it didn't seem to work the way I wanted it to. > Perhaps the way I was testing it isn't proper for miimon? > > I attempted to make one of the two links fail by doing "ifconfig eth3 > down" This appeared to work find on the server I ran that on. I could > still ping the other server. However, from the 2nd server, when I ping > the 1st, I lost every other packet. > Checking /proc/networking/bonding/bond2 showed that it still thought > that both links were up. > > Is this because miimon still thinks a port is good if there is a cable > and a powered NIC on both ends, and it doesn't care if th other NIC > isn't responding? > > And arp monitoring works because it actually checks the reachability of > the target IP. > > If this is the case, maybe arp monitoring is more reliable for direct > connections since NIC failure (which may fail but still have link up) is > more likely than cable failure? Maybe I don't have a good understanding > of this. > > In addition, I tried to use scp to test the throughput through the > bonded link, but I actually got almost the same results via > active-backup as with balance-rr. Am I doing something wrong? > > Thanks, > Herman > > > _______________________________________________ > drbd-user mailing list > drbd-user at lists.linbit.com > http://lists.linbit.com/mailman/listinfo/drbd-user I noticed only improvement on SLES11 after tuning the tcp_reordering parameter. B.