Message-ID: <4D35C677.1020909@yandex-team.ru>
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:57:27 +0300
From:	"Oleg V. Ukhno" <olegu@...dex-team.ru>
To:	Nicolas de Pesloüan 
	<nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com>
CC:	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sébastien Barré <sebastien.barre@...ouvain.be>,
	Christophe Paasch <christoph.paasch@...ouvain.be>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: added 802.3ad round-robin hashing policy for
 single TCP session balancing

On 01/18/2011 07:24 PM, Nicolas de Pesloüan wrote:
> Le 18/01/2011 16:28, Oleg V. Ukhno a écrit :
>> On 01/18/2011 05:54 PM, Nicolas de Pesloüan wrote:
>>> I remember a topology (described by Jay, for as far as I remember),
>>> where two hosts were connected through two distinct VLANs. In such
>>> topology:
>>> - it is possible to detect path failure using arp monitoring instead of
>>> miimon.
>>> - changing the destination MAC address of egress packets are not
>>> necessary, because egress path selection force ingress path selection
>>> due to the VLAN.
>>
>> In case with two VLANs - yes, this shouldn't be necessary(but needs to
>> be tested, I am not sure), but within one - it is essential for correct
>> rx load striping.
>
> Changing the destination MAC address is definitely not required if you
> segregate each path in a distinct VLAN.
Yes, such L2 network topology should provide necessary high-availability 
and load striping without need to change MAC addresses. But it is more 
difficult to maintain and to understand, in my opinion(when there are 
just several configurations like this - it's ok, but when you have 50 or 
more?) - this is why I've chosen 802.3ad.

> Even in the present of ISL between some switches, packet sent through
> host A interface connected to vlan 100 will only enter host B using the
> interface connected to vlan 100. So every slaves of the bonding
> interface can use the same MAC address.
>
> Of course, changing the destination address would be required in order
> to achieve ingress load balancing on a *single* LAN. But, as Jay noted
> at the beginning of this thread, this would violate 802.3ad.
>

I think receiving same MAC-addresses on different ports on same host 
will just make any troubleshooting much harder, won't it? With different 
MACs it takes little time to find out where the problem is, usually.
I think that implementing choice for choosing whether use single MAC 
address in etherchannel or just use slave's real MAC adresses, won't 
harm anything for both 802.3ad and balance-rr modes, but will simplify 
it's usage without doing any evil, when documented properly.

>
> You are right, but such LAN setup need to be carefully designed and
> built. I'm not sure that an automatic channel aggregation system is the
> right way to do it. Hence the reason why I suggest to use balance-rr
> with VLANs.
>
>>> Oleg, would you mind trying the above "two VLAN" topology" with
>>> mode=balance-rr and report any results ? For high-availability purpose,
>>> it's obviously necessary to setup those VLAN on distinct switches.
>> I'll do it, but it will take some time to setup test environment,
>> several days may be.
>
> Thanks. For testing purpose, it is enough to setup those VLAN on a
> single switch if it is easier for you to do.
Well, I'll do it with 2 switches :)
>
>> You mean following topology:
>
> See above.
>
>> (i'm sure it will work as desired if each host is connected to each
>> switch with only one slave link, if there are more slaves in each switch
>> - unsure)?
>
> If you want to use more than 2 slaves per host, then you need more than
> 2 VLAN.

That's what I don't like in this solution. Within one LAN is is simplier 
and requires less configuration efforts.

You also need to have the exact same number of slaves on all
> hosts, as egress path selection cause ingress path selection at the
> other side.
>

Well, and here's one difference from bonding with my patch. In case of 
my patch applied, it is not required to have equal number of slaves, it 
is enough to have *even* number of slaves, this almost always(so far I 
haven't seen opposite) gurarntees good rx(ingress) load striping.

>
> Nicolas.
>


-- 
С уважением,
руководитель службы
эксплуатации коммерческих и финансовых сервисов
ООО Яндекс

Олег Юхно


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists