Re: Fwd: Re: Issues with Ceph network redundancy using L2 MC-LAG

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Is it true that MC-LAG and 803.2ad, by its default, are working on active-active. 

What else should i take care to ensure fault tolerance when one path is bad?

best regards,

samuel



huxiaoyu@xxxxxxxxxxxx
 
From: Joe Comeau
Date: 2021-06-15 23:44
To: ceph-users@xxxxxxx
Subject:  Fwd: Re: Issues with Ceph network redundancy using L2 MC-LAG
We also run with Dell VLT switches (40 GB)
everything is active/active, so multiple paths as Andrew describes in
his config
Our config allows us:
   bring down one of the switches for upgrades
   bring down an iscsi gatway for patching
all the while at least one path is up and servicing
Thanks Joe
 
 
>>> Andrew Walker-Brown <andrew_jbrown@xxxxxxxxxxx> 6/15/2021 10:26 AM
>>>
With an unstable link/port you could see the issues you describe.  Ping
doesn’t have the packet rate for you to necessarily have a packet in
transit at exactly the same time as the port fails temporarily.  Iperf
on the other hand could certainly show the issue, higher packet rate and
more likely to have packets in flight at the time of a link
fail...combined with packet loss/retries gives poor throughput.
 
Depending on what you want to happen, there are a number of tuning
options both on the switches and Linux.  If you want the LAG to be down
if any link fails, the you should be able to config this on the switches
and/or Linux  (minimum number of links = 2 if you have 2 links in the
lag).
 
You can also tune the link monitoring, how frequently the links are
checked (e.g. miimon) etc.  Bringing this value down from the default of
100ms may allow you to detect a link failure more quickly.  But you then
run into the chance if detecting a transient failure that wouldn’t have
caused any issues....and the LAG becoming more unstable.
 
Flapping/unstable links are the worst kind of situation.  Ideally you’d
pick that up quickly from monitoring/alerts and either fix immediately
or take the link down until you can fix it.
 
I run 2x10G from my hosts into separate switches (Dell S series – VLT
between switches).  Pulling a single interface has no impact on Ceph,
any packet loss is tiny and we’re not exceeding 10G bandwidth per host.
 
If you’re running 1G links and the LAG is already busy, a link failure
could be causing slow writes to the host, just down to
congestion...which then starts to impact the wider cluster based on how
Ceph works.
 
Just caveating the above with - I’m relatively new to Ceph myself....
 
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
Windows 10
 
From: huxiaoyu@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:huxiaoyu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 15 June 2021 17:52
To: Serkan Çoban<mailto:cobanserkan@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ceph-users<mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxx>
Subject:  Re: Issues with Ceph network redundancy using L2
MC-LAG
 
When i pull out the cable, then the bond is working properly.
 
Does it mean that the port is somehow flapping? Ping can still work,
but the iperf test yields very low results.
 
 
 
 
 
huxiaoyu@xxxxxxxxxxxx
 
From: Serkan Çoban
Date: 2021-06-15 18:47
To: huxiaoyu@xxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: ceph-users
Subject: Re:  Issues with Ceph network redundancy using L2
MC-LAG
Do you observe the same behaviour when you pull a cable?
Maybe a flapping port might cause this kind of behaviour, other than
that you should't see any network disconnects.
Are you sure about LACP configuration, what is the output of 'cat
/proc/net/bonding/bond0'
 
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 7:19 PM huxiaoyu@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<huxiaoyu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Dear Cephers,
>
> I encountered the following networking issue several times, and i
wonder whether there is a solution for networking HA solution.
>
> We build ceph using L2 multi chassis link aggregation group (MC-LAG )
to provide switch redundancy. On each host, we use 802.3ad, LACP
> mode for NIC redundancy. However, we observe several times, when a
single network port, either the cable, or the SFP+ optical module fails,
Ceph cluster  is badly affected by networking, although in theory it
should be able to tolerate.
>
> Did i miss something important here? and how to really achieve
networking HA in Ceph cluster?
>
> best regards,
>
> Samuel
>
>
>
>
> huxiaoyu@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx
 
> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Ceph Dev]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux