Mailing List Archive: interface failover for drbd?

interface failover for drbd?

Dec 11, 2000, 4:02 AM

Post #1 of 8 (2439 views)

Hi, just a question:

Having a 2nd pair of network cards for drbd communication between two nodes
can be a real win performance-wise; especially if the main network
connection is via a 10Mbit Hub.

The question is, how to handle failure of this interconnect?

a) Dont handle it - if the secondary card(s)/cable etc. fail, the primary
can continue in disconnected mode. We treat it pretty much like a failure of
the secondary node.

b) provide failover to the primary network card. Sounds interesting, I'd
like to know if anyone tried this yet.

Any ideas what's the right way to do this?

Thanks martin.

"you have moved your mouse, please reboot to make this change take effect"
--------------------------------------------------
Martin Bene vox: +43-316-813824
simon media fax: +43-316-813824-6
Nikolaiplatz 4 e-mail: mb@example.com
8020 Graz, Austria
--------------------------------------------------
finger mb@example.com for PGP public key

Re: interface failover for drbd? [ In reply to ]

marcelo at example

Dec 11, 2000, 3:44 AM

Post #2 of 8 (2415 views)

On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Martin Bene wrote:

> Hi, just a question:
>
> Having a 2nd pair of network cards for drbd communication between two nodes
> can be a real win performance-wise; especially if the main network
> connection is via a 10Mbit Hub.
>
> The question is, how to handle failure of this interconnect?
>
> a) Dont handle it - if the secondary card(s)/cable etc. fail, the primary
> can continue in disconnected mode. We treat it pretty much like a failure of
> the secondary node.
>
> b) provide failover to the primary network card. Sounds interesting, I'd
> like to know if anyone tried this yet.
>
> Any ideas what's the right way to do this?

The bonding network interface in 2.4 kernel is able to do failover of
interfaces.

If you try it, please report the results because I'm sure there are other
people besides me who are interested in such feature.

Re: interface failover for drbd? [ In reply to ]

thomas.mangin at example

Dec 11, 2000, 8:22 AM

Post #3 of 8 (2414 views)

> Hi, just a question:
>
> Having a 2nd pair of network cards for drbd communication between two
nodes
> can be a real win performance-wise; especially if the main network
> connection is via a 10Mbit Hub.

Can I ask. Can the default route be balanced between two interface under 2.2
?
I need myself a little bit of explanation on how this can be done.
Of it is only a 2.4 thingy as Marcelo seems to say let me know ..

> The question is, how to handle failure of this interconnect?
>
> a) Dont handle it - if the secondary card(s)/cable etc. fail, the
primary
> can continue in disconnected mode. We treat it pretty much like a failure
of
> the secondary node.

I like this solution, easy to do ;*)

> b) provide failover to the primary network card. Sounds interesting, I'd
> like to know if anyone tried this yet.

It can be done but is it worth it ?

> Any ideas what's the right way to do this?

will think about it, I am short of time.

Thomas

Re: interface failover for drbd? [ In reply to ]

marcelo at example

Dec 11, 2000, 8:23 AM

Post #4 of 8 (2406 views)

On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Thomas Mangin wrote:

> > Hi, just a question:
> >
> > Having a 2nd pair of network cards for drbd communication between two
> nodes
> > can be a real win performance-wise; especially if the main network
> > connection is via a 10Mbit Hub.
>
> Can I ask. Can the default route be balanced between two interface under 2.2
> ?
> I need myself a little bit of explanation on how this can be done.
> Of it is only a 2.4 thingy as Marcelo seems to say let me know ..

You can port it to 2.2 :)

>
> > The question is, how to handle failure of this interconnect?
> >
> > a) Dont handle it - if the secondary card(s)/cable etc. fail, the
> primary
> > can continue in disconnected mode. We treat it pretty much like a failure
> of
> > the secondary node.
>
> I like this solution, easy to do ;*)
>
> > b) provide failover to the primary network card. Sounds interesting, I'd
> > like to know if anyone tried this yet.
>
> It can be done but is it worth it ?

The important thing is to do stuff inside drbd which should be done in
other layers.

Re: interface failover for drbd? [ In reply to ]

marcelo at example

Dec 11, 2000, 8:50 AM

Post #5 of 8 (2410 views)

On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Thomas Mangin wrote:

<snip>

> The easiest is to setup heartbeat to bring a service ip for drbd and change
> the card is something is wrong, like that it works (but without load
> balancing between the card) and I have nothing to do ;*)

The advantage of channel bonding is that it balances the load between the
cards.

Re: interface failover for drbd? [ In reply to ]

thomas.mangin at example

Dec 11, 2000, 10:42 AM

Post #6 of 8 (2406 views)

> On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Thomas Mangin wrote:
>
> > > Hi, just a question:
> > >
> > > Having a 2nd pair of network cards for drbd communication between two
> > nodes
> > > can be a real win performance-wise; especially if the main network
> > > connection is via a 10Mbit Hub.
> >
> > Can I ask. Can the default route be balanced between two interface under
2.2
> > ?
> > I need myself a little bit of explanation on how this can be done.
> > Of it is only a 2.4 thingy as Marcelo seems to say let me know ..
>
> You can port it to 2.2 :)

You really wants me to bug Linux ;*)
Linus will NEVER accept my patches .. Even if I was paying him ;*)

> The important thing is to do stuff inside drbd which should be done in
> other layers.

It means that somewhere I will be involved ;*)

The easiest is to setup heartbeat to bring a service ip for drbd and change
the card is something is wrong, like that it works (but without load
balancing between the card) and I have nothing to do ;*)

/Thomas

Re: interface failover for drbd? [ In reply to ]

yocum at example

Dec 18, 2000, 2:04 PM

Post #7 of 8 (2445 views)

Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Thomas Mangin wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > The easiest is to setup heartbeat to bring a service ip for drbd and change
> > the card is something is wrong, like that it works (but without load
> > balancing between the card) and I have nothing to do ;*)
>
> The advantage of channel bonding is that it balances the load between the
> cards.

OK, so you guys had been talking about channel bonding last week at
about the time I brought it up (I'm really, really behind on my mailing
list mail).

So, I know channel bonding is in 2.2.x, and now Marcelo suggests that
there's some sort of automatic failover/load balancing in the 2.4 kernel
for channel bonded devices, but does drbd work with 2.4, yet?

Cheers,
Dan

--
Dan Yocum, Sr. Linux Consultant
Linuxcare, Inc.
630.697.8066 tel
yocum@example.com, http://www.linuxcare.com

Linuxcare. Support for the revolution.

Re: interface failover for drbd? [ In reply to ]

marcelo at example

Dec 19, 2000, 6:41 PM

Post #8 of 8 (2415 views)

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Dan Yocum wrote:

> Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Thomas Mangin wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > The easiest is to setup heartbeat to bring a service ip for drbd and change
> > > the card is something is wrong, like that it works (but without load
> > > balancing between the card) and I have nothing to do ;*)
> >
> > The advantage of channel bonding is that it balances the load between the
> > cards.
>
> OK, so you guys had been talking about channel bonding last week at
> about the time I brought it up (I'm really, really behind on my mailing
> list mail).
>
> So, I know channel bonding is in 2.2.x, and now Marcelo suggests that
> there's some sort of automatic failover/load balancing in the 2.4 kernel
> for channel bonded devices, but does drbd work with 2.4, yet?

It should work.

If you are going to use 2.4, please use kernel olders than test12, because
test12 has some block layer modifications which will probably need drbd
modifications.