Re: [Xen-users] Bonded interfaces with trunk and iscsi SAN

[Donny Brooks <dbrooks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2/16/2011 8:03 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Donny Brooks<dbrooks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > > > The only thing on that vlan is the SAN. Now that I think about it the
> > > > windows machine is set to a /24 on each interface. So it may be that the
> > > > SAN
> > > > is set for /24 instead of /16. Now just to figure out how to have 4
> > > > "interfaces" each with a /24 subnet...... hmmmm. :)
> > > That's easy. ifcfg-br20:1, ifcfg-br20:2, etc. :D
> > I think it is getting late in the day.... I added the ifcfg-br20:1/2/3/4
> > files with the contents as follows:
> >
> > [root@xen-test network-scripts]# cat ifcfg-br20\:*
> > DEVICE=br20:1
> > TYPE=Bridge
> > BOOTPROTO=static
> > IPADDR=192.168.130.53
> > NETMASK=255.255.255.0
> > NETWORK=192.168.130.0
> > ONBOOT=yes
> >
> > DEVICE=br20:2
> > TYPE=Bridge
> > BOOTPROTO=static
> > IPADDR=192.168.131.53
> > NETMASK=255.255.255.0
> > NETWORK=192.168.131.0
> > ONBOOT=yes
> >
> > DEVICE=br20:3
> > TYPE=Bridge
> > BOOTPROTO=static
> > IPADDR=192.168.132.53
> > NETMASK=255.255.255.0
> > NETWORK=192.168.132.0
> > ONBOOT=yes
> >
> > DEVICE=br20:4
> > TYPE=Bridge
> > BOOTPROTO=static
> > IPADDR=192.168.133.53
> > NETMASK=255.255.255.0
> > NETWORK=192.168.133.0
> > ONBOOT=yes
> >
> > and when I try to ifup the first interface I get this......
> >
> > [root@xen-test network-scripts]# ifup br20:1
> > Bridge support not available in this kernel
> >
> >
> > How is bridge support not available in the kernel when it is bridges I am
> > working with already? I think I will take a step away from this for a bit
> > and come back to it tomorrow.
> Apparently when you put "TYPE=Bridge", it decides to always create a
> bridge with that name (RHEL6 actually ALLOWS you to have a bridge
> named "br0:1"). Removing "TYPE=Bridge" should make it work as
> expected.
Fajar you are brilliant! That worked like a charm! Now I can have all 
four vlans and the "redundant failover" that dell recommends. I mean it 
is kind of redundantly redundant.... dual controllers with 4 nics per 
controller in the SAN, with each of the 8 ports split among various 
cards in my core switch, then going to a 802.3ad type bond to the 
servers where all 2 or 4 of the NIC's are bonded together. And before 
anyone says anything... I know it is better to have the SAN on it's own 
interfaces and setup jumbo frames. That is not an option on the cisco 
switch we have unfortunately.
Thanks for all the help! Now just to get the stuff to work with a nice 
gui frontend like eucalyptus or similar.
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users