Hi,
Why don't you connect them to LACP trunk on the same or two clustered switch?It would be more easy to manage and more profesional.
Here are topologies.
SAME SWITCH
Node interfaces are LACP and connected to single switch.Node1 Node 2 Node3
| | | | | |
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
| SWITCH |
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
CLUSTERED SWITCHES
Node interfaces are LACP and each interface connected respectively to SW1&SW2, which are clustered.
----------------------------------------------
|----| SWITCH 1 |
| ----------------------------------------------
| | | |
| Node1 Node 2 Node3
| | | |
| ----------------------------------------------
|----| SWITCH 2 |
----------------------------------------------
|----| SWITCH 1 |
| ----------------------------------------------
| | | |
| Node1 Node 2 Node3
| | | |
| ----------------------------------------------
|----| SWITCH 2 |
----------------------------------------------
Best Regards
Aytac
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Joop <jvdwege@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think this will work since the VMs will be running on the same 3On 22-5-2015 18:48, Joe Julian wrote:
> This is a concept that needs some work to implement, but could
> potentially see a benefit from that topography:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15IiPVIPMzgGwkt1sKuIusRE2l3pQY6NnA4WmWaMsFJE/edit?usp=sharing
>
> On 05/22/2015 09:02 AM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>>> Hi there,
>>> I'm planning to setup a 3-Node Cluster for oVirt and would like to
>>> use 56 GBe
>>> (RoCe)
>>> exclusively for GlusterFS. Since 56 GBe switches are far too
>>> expensive and
>>> it's not
>>> planned to add more nodes and furthermore this would add a SPOF I'd
>>> like to
>>> cross connect the nodes as shown in the diagram below:
>>> Node 1 Node 2 Node3
>>> ||_______||________||
>>> |___________________|
>>> This way there's a dedicated 56 Gbit connection to/from each member
>>> node.
>>> Is is possible to do this with GlusterFS?
>>> My first thought was to have different IPs on each node's /etc/host
>>> mapped to
>>> the node
>>> hostnames but I'm unsure if I can force GlusterFS to hostnames
>>> instead of
>>> IPs.
>>
gluster hosts making all traffic local to the cluster, it wouldn't work
without extra effort if you had a seperate set of hosts acting as
clients. You can still seperate rebalancing traffic to a seperate
subnet/vlan if you wish.
Regards,
Joop
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
