VIF load balancing - Storage

This is a discussion on VIF load balancing - Storage ; Anybody can suggest that which load balance should use at NearLine R200 Filer. IP Load balance or round robin ? I feel in IP Load balance, trafic will not be balanced equally because clients are very less. Am I thinking ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: VIF load balancing

  1. VIF load balancing

    Anybody can suggest that which load balance should use at NearLine
    R200 Filer.
    IP Load balance or round robin ?

    I feel in IP Load balance, trafic will not be balanced equally because
    clients are very less.

    Am I thinking in right direction or missing something. Please comment
    on it

    - Raju


  2. Re: VIF load balancing

    On 24 Feb 2007 12:43:44 -0800, "Raju Mahala"
    wrote:

    >Anybody can suggest that which load balance should use at NearLine
    >R200 Filer.
    >IP Load balance or round robin ?
    >
    >I feel in IP Load balance, trafic will not be balanced equally because
    >clients are very less.
    >
    >Am I thinking in right direction or missing something. Please comment
    >on it
    >
    >- Raju



    What is the problem you are trying to solve by using a VIF?

    ~F

  3. Re: VIF load balancing

    On Feb 27, 2:35 am, Faeandar wrote:
    > On 24 Feb 2007 12:43:44 -0800, "Raju Mahala"
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Anybody can suggest that which load balance should use at NearLine
    > >R200 Filer.
    > >IP Load balance or round robin ?

    >
    > >I feel in IP Load balance, trafic will not be balanced equally because
    > >clients are very less.

    >
    > >Am I thinking in right direction or missing something. Please comment
    > >on it

    >
    > >- Raju

    >
    > What is the problem you are trying to solve by using a VIF?
    >
    > ~F


    OK, actually it was configured to get more network bandwidth. For last
    some times I am getting lots of error in /etc/message files of primary
    and secondary storage which stats "transfer aborted due to network
    error. When I checked with "vif stat vif1 2" then found that packets
    are not balanced out properly on both the ports.
    I feel this errror may be due to more network load so I am trying to
    balance it out accross the ports in vif. But as there are limited
    clients for secondary storage so network load is not balanced on both
    port based on "IP load balance" so I am thinking to make it round
    robin. But round robin may create retransmission but not sure it is
    for Secondary storage also ?

    -Raju


  4. Re: VIF load balancing

    On 28 Feb 2007 08:41:13 -0800, "Raju Mahala"
    wrote:

    >On Feb 27, 2:35 am, Faeandar wrote:
    >> On 24 Feb 2007 12:43:44 -0800, "Raju Mahala"
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Anybody can suggest that which load balance should use at NearLine
    >> >R200 Filer.
    >> >IP Load balance or round robin ?

    >>
    >> >I feel in IP Load balance, trafic will not be balanced equally because
    >> >clients are very less.

    >>
    >> >Am I thinking in right direction or missing something. Please comment
    >> >on it

    >>
    >> >- Raju

    >>
    >> What is the problem you are trying to solve by using a VIF?
    >>
    >> ~F

    >
    >OK, actually it was configured to get more network bandwidth. For last
    >some times I am getting lots of error in /etc/message files of primary
    >and secondary storage which stats "transfer aborted due to network
    >error. When I checked with "vif stat vif1 2" then found that packets
    >are not balanced out properly on both the ports.
    >I feel this errror may be due to more network load so I am trying to
    >balance it out accross the ports in vif. But as there are limited
    >clients for secondary storage so network load is not balanced on both
    >port based on "IP load balance" so I am thinking to make it round
    >robin. But round robin may create retransmission but not sure it is
    >for Secondary storage also ?
    >
    >-Raju



    What type of switch are you using? If you use Cisco you have to have
    the ports channeled. Other vendors probably call it trunking or
    whatever but you still need the switch to know that both ports are for
    the same MAC.

    This is above and beyond the VIF creation on the filer.

    ~F

  5. Re: VIF load balancing

    On Mar 1, 8:05 am, Faeandar wrote:
    > On 28 Feb 2007 08:41:13 -0800, "Raju Mahala"
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Feb 27, 2:35 am, Faeandar wrote:
    > >> On 24 Feb 2007 12:43:44 -0800, "Raju Mahala"
    > >> wrote:

    >
    > >> >Anybody can suggest that which load balance should use at NearLine
    > >> >R200 Filer.
    > >> >IP Load balance or round robin ?

    >
    > >> >I feel in IP Load balance, trafic will not be balanced equally because
    > >> >clients are very less.

    >
    > >> >Am I thinking in right direction or missing something. Please comment
    > >> >on it

    >
    > >> >- Raju

    >
    > >> What is the problem you are trying to solve by using a VIF?

    >
    > >> ~F

    >
    > >OK, actually it was configured to get more network bandwidth. For last
    > >some times I am getting lots of error in /etc/message files of primary
    > >and secondary storage which stats "transfer aborted due to network
    > >error. When I checked with "vif stat vif1 2" then found that packets
    > >are not balanced out properly on both the ports.
    > >I feel this errror may be due to more network load so I am trying to
    > >balance it out accross the ports in vif. But as there are limited
    > >clients for secondary storage so network load is not balanced on both
    > >port based on "IP load balance" so I am thinking to make it round
    > >robin. But round robin may create retransmission but not sure it is
    > >for Secondary storage also ?

    >
    > >-Raju

    >
    > What type of switch are you using? If you use Cisco you have to have
    > the ports channeled. Other vendors probably call it trunking or
    > whatever but you still need the switch to know that both ports are for
    > the same MAC.
    >
    > This is above and beyond the VIF creation on the filer.
    >
    > ~F- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    We use Cisco switch and channeleing is well in plance thats why
    incoming packets are balanced and even out going packets are balance
    at some extent but not very much balance. As I know port which is used
    to send outgoing packet is selected based on below formulla if IP load
    balance mechanisim is choosen.
    ("last byte of soure IP" XOR "last byte of destination IP" ) % no. of
    links in vif
    So according to this formula it is clear that outgoing packets will be
    as much balanced as much client acces the filer. But in the case of
    Near storage which is only used for snapvault from primary filer it
    seem this mechanism is not best suited and hence I feel round robin
    shoul be used but not sure about consequences of round robin. Round
    robin is recommended fro primary filer as retransmission may increase
    but same will be the case for near line storage which is used only for
    snapvault from primary storage.

    - Raju


  6. Re: VIF load balancing

    On 1 Mar 2007 09:52:52 -0800, "Raju Mahala"
    wrote:

    >On Mar 1, 8:05 am, Faeandar wrote:
    >> On 28 Feb 2007 08:41:13 -0800, "Raju Mahala"
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> >On Feb 27, 2:35 am, Faeandar wrote:
    >> >> On 24 Feb 2007 12:43:44 -0800, "Raju Mahala"
    >> >> wrote:

    >>
    >> >> >Anybody can suggest that which load balance should use at NearLine
    >> >> >R200 Filer.
    >> >> >IP Load balance or round robin ?

    >>
    >> >> >I feel in IP Load balance, trafic will not be balanced equally because
    >> >> >clients are very less.

    >>
    >> >> >Am I thinking in right direction or missing something. Please comment
    >> >> >on it

    >>
    >> >> >- Raju

    >>
    >> >> What is the problem you are trying to solve by using a VIF?

    >>
    >> >> ~F

    >>
    >> >OK, actually it was configured to get more network bandwidth. For last
    >> >some times I am getting lots of error in /etc/message files of primary
    >> >and secondary storage which stats "transfer aborted due to network
    >> >error. When I checked with "vif stat vif1 2" then found that packets
    >> >are not balanced out properly on both the ports.
    >> >I feel this errror may be due to more network load so I am trying to
    >> >balance it out accross the ports in vif. But as there are limited
    >> >clients for secondary storage so network load is not balanced on both
    >> >port based on "IP load balance" so I am thinking to make it round
    >> >robin. But round robin may create retransmission but not sure it is
    >> >for Secondary storage also ?

    >>
    >> >-Raju

    >>
    >> What type of switch are you using? If you use Cisco you have to have
    >> the ports channeled. Other vendors probably call it trunking or
    >> whatever but you still need the switch to know that both ports are for
    >> the same MAC.
    >>
    >> This is above and beyond the VIF creation on the filer.
    >>
    >> ~F- Hide quoted text -
    >>
    >> - Show quoted text -

    >
    >We use Cisco switch and channeleing is well in plance thats why
    >incoming packets are balanced and even out going packets are balance
    >at some extent but not very much balance. As I know port which is used
    >to send outgoing packet is selected based on below formulla if IP load
    >balance mechanisim is choosen.
    >("last byte of soure IP" XOR "last byte of destination IP" ) % no. of
    >links in vif
    >So according to this formula it is clear that outgoing packets will be
    >as much balanced as much client acces the filer. But in the case of
    >Near storage which is only used for snapvault from primary filer it
    >seem this mechanism is not best suited and hence I feel round robin
    >shoul be used but not sure about consequences of round robin. Round
    >robin is recommended fro primary filer as retransmission may increase
    >but same will be the case for near line storage which is used only for
    >snapvault from primary storage.
    >
    >- Raju


    Ah, my mistake. I now understand what you are asking and I do not
    know the answer.

    Sorry.

    ~F

+ Reply to Thread