[Pacemaker] [Semi-OT] To bridge or to bond?

[Vladislav Bogdanov]

Hi,

05.05.2012 20:05, Arnold Krille wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> please excuse (and ignore) this mail when you think its not appropriate for 
> this list or to faq.
> 
> We had our servers all connected via one gigabit switch and used bonds to have 
> 2GB links for each of them (using drbd and pacemaker/corosync to keep our data 
> distributed and services/machines up and running).
> As the switch constitudes a SPOF, we wanted to eliminate this and put a second 
> GB-switch into the rack.
> Now I/we can't use the real bonding-modes anymore, only fail-over, tlb and 
> alb. We don't really like the idea of fail-over because that means going back 
> to 1GB data-rates. Using tlb we get nearly 2GBits total rates with 1GB per 
> connection so that looks nice throughput wise. But for simple icmp-pings, 
> 50-90% of pings are lost propably due to the switches re-learning the mac-
> addresses all the time. Also some tcp-connections seem to stall due to this. 
> Not really a nice situation when desktop-virtualization and terminal servers 
> are used in this scenario.
> 
> My questions:
> Is there something obvious I missed in the above configuration?(*)