<div dir="auto"><div>I do what you're trying to do, with bonds going to two independent switches (not stacked) from each host. <div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Works fine for the engine, vms network, migration, etc, but I don't use Gluster. Either cable can be pulled or either switch rebooted without disturbing Ovirt. Switches are connected to each other as you've described. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div>I'd like to get to the bottom of why it's not working with Gluster, because I plan the same as you.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 26, 2019, 6:15 AM Alex K <<a href="mailto:rightkicktech@gmail.com">rightkicktech@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br><div><div>Thank you to all for your suggestions. <br></div><div><br></div><div>I
came here since only gluster was having issues to start. Ping and other
networking services were showing everything fine, so I guess there is
sth at gluster that does not like what I tried to do. <br></div><div>Unfortunately
I have this system in production and I cannot experiment. It was a
customer request to add redundancy to the switch and I went with what I
assumed would work. <br></div><div>I guess I have to have the switches stacked, but the current ones do not support this. They are just simple managed switches. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Multiple IPs per peers could be a solution. <br></div><div>I will search a little more and in case I have sth I will get back. </div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:52 AM Strahil <<a href="mailto:hunter86_bg@yahoo.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">hunter86_bg@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Hi Alex,</p>
<p dir="ltr">As per the following ( ttps://<a href="http://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/lacp-load-balancing-in-2-switches-part-of-3750-stack-switch/td-p/2268111" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">community.cisco.com/t5/switching/lacp-load-balancing-in-2-switches-part-of-3750-stack-switch/td-p/2268111</a> ) your switches need to be stacked in order to support lacp with your setup.<br>
Yet, I'm not sure if balance-alb will work with 2 separate switches - maybe some special configuration is needed ?!?<br>
As far as I know gluster can have multiple IPs matched to a single peer, but I'm not sure if having 2 separate networks will be used as active-backup or active-active.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Someone more experienced should jump in.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Best Regards,<br>
Strahil Nikolov</p>
<div class="m_1569350915050881156gmail-m_-2811570987427623044quote">On Feb 25, 2019 12:43, Alex K <<a href="mailto:rightkicktech@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rightkicktech@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="m_1569350915050881156gmail-m_-2811570987427623044quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi All, <br></div><div><br></div><div>I was asking if it is possible to have the two separate cables connected to two different physical switched. When trying mode6 or mode1 in this setup gluster was refusing to start the volumes, giving me "transport endpoint is not connected". <br></div><div><br></div><div>server1: cable1 ---------------- switch1 --------------------- server2: cable1<br></div><div> |<br></div><div>server1: cable2 ---------------- switch2 --------------------- server2: cable2<br></div><div><br></div><div>Both switches are connected with each other also. This is done to achieve redundancy for the switches. <br></div><div>When disconnecting cable2 from both servers, then gluster was happy. <br></div><div>What could be the problem?<br></div><div></div><div><br></div><div>Thanx,</div><div>Alex<br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="m_1569350915050881156gmail-m_-2811570987427623044elided-text"><div dir="ltr">On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:32 AM Jorick Astrego <<a href="mailto:jorick@netbulae.eu" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">jorick@netbulae.eu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>We use bonding mode 6 (balance-alb) for GlusterFS traffic</p>
<p><a href="https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_gluster_storage/3.4/html/administration_guide/network4" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"></a><a href="https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_gluster_storage/3.4/html/administration_guide/network4" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_gluster_storage/3.4/html/administration_guide/network4</a><br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Preferred bonding mode for Red Hat Gluster Storage client is
mode 6 (balance-alb), this allows client to transmit writes in
parallel on separate NICs much of the time. <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Jorick Astrego<br>
</p>
<div>On 2/25/19 5:41 AM, Dmitry Melekhov
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>23.02.2019 19:54, Alex K пишет:<br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi all, <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have a replica 3 setup where each server was configured
with a dual interfaces in mode 6 bonding. All cables were
connected to one common network switch. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>To add redundancy to the switch, and avoid being a single
point of failure, I connected each second cable of each
server to a second switch. This turned out to not function
as gluster was refusing to start the volume logging
"transport endpoint is disconnected" although all nodes were
able to reach each other (ping) in the storage network. I
switched the mode to mode 1 (active/passive) and initially
it worked but following a reboot of all cluster same issue
appeared. Gluster is not starting the volumes. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Isn't active/passive supposed to work like that? Can one
have such redundant network setup or are there any other
recommended approaches?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Yes, we use lacp, I guess this is mode 4 ( we use teamd ), it
is, no doubt, best way.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Thanx, <br>
</div>
<div>Alex<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
<a href="mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Gluster-users@gluster.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"></a><a href="https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre></pre></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gluster-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Gluster-users@gluster.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users</a></blockquote></div></div></div>