On 11/2/09, Javier Guerra <javier@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Israel Garcia <igalvarez@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Can you help me?
>
> not much, unfortunately. even if there are some standards, compliance
> is spotty at best, so you'll have to test if your devices collaborate.
>
Hi Javier,
Very interesting your comment about link aggregation. thanks :-)
I think this setup (using link aggregation in both sides) is the best
way to achieve higher (1GBE) bandwidth over a ethernet network serving
SAN boxes. I've searched the web a lot and I haven't found other best
setup. I'm going to test all LACP/bonding and If it's possible I'll
send the list some results.
thanks again.
regards,
Israel.
> in any case, this was my reasoning for mentioning port aggregation (or
> more precise, Link aggregation):
>
> - the 'usual' topology for all things ethernet (including iSCSI), is
> to simply put the switches at the middle and pull one cable to each
> host.
>
> - in a SAN, this creates a bottleneck since it's common to have just
> one or two storage boxes for several hosts (specially when just
> starting!). The single Ethernet port going to the storage box limits
> the total access bandwidth to just 1Gb for all hosts.
>
> - most iSCSI devices currently include several (4-6) GbE ports.
>
> - the naïve way to use all these ports would be to ditch the Ethernet
> switch, and just connect one host on each port. This gives you 1Gb
> dedicated for each host, and the total data bandwidth is limited to
> the platter and internal backbone speeds.
>
> - unfortunately, this strategy is too limiting for later growth. Not
> only you have a limited number of ports, but it also makes nearly
> impossible to add a second storage box.
>
> - so, what you can do is to keep the central switch, plug each host on
> a single port of the switch; but for the storage box, use several
> ports connected to several ports in the switch. if the link
> aggregation features of both the storage box and the switch match, now
> you have a single very fat link between the box and the switch. From
> the point of view of the hosts, it's exactly the same as the 'usual'
> topology (one device on each switch port); but a single host won't be
> able to saturate the storage bandwith.
>
> - expandability also isn't impaired, you can add extra hosts without
> any change, and also extra storage just by creating extra link
> aggregation groups.
>
> hope it helps, at least in clarifying the general concepts. for
> details you'll have to consult the docs of both your storage box and
> switches, and experiment a lot!
>
> --
> Javier
>
--
Regards;
Israel Garcia
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
Home