Thanks for all the help. We will follow the more careful approach!
-Sreenath
On 11/26/14, Kyle Bader wrote:
>> Thanks for all the help. Can the moving over from VLAN to separate
>> switches be done on a live cluster? Or does there need to be a down
>> time?
>
> You can do it on a life cluster. T
> Thanks for all the help. Can the moving over from VLAN to separate
> switches be done on a live cluster? Or does there need to be a down
> time?
You can do it on a life cluster. The more cavalier approach would be
to quickly switch the link over one server at a time, which might
cause a short io
Thanks for all the help. Can the moving over from VLAN to separate
switches be done on a live cluster? Or does there need to be a down
time?
-Sreenath
On 11/26/14, Kyle Bader wrote:
>> For a large network (say 100 servers and 2500 disks), are there any
>> strong advantages to using separate swit
> For a large network (say 100 servers and 2500 disks), are there any
> strong advantages to using separate switch and physical network
> instead of VLAN?
Physical isolation will ensure that congestion on one does not affect
the other. On the flip side, asymmetric network failures tend to be
more
Hi,
From my humble opinion if you have enough money, separate switches are
always a better choice.
Regrads, I
2014-11-25 20:47 GMT+01:00 Craig Lewis :
> It's mostly about bandwidth. With VLANs, the public and cluster networks
> are going to be sharing the inter-switch links.
>
> For a cluste
It's mostly about bandwidth. With VLANs, the public and cluster networks
are going to be sharing the inter-switch links.
For a cluster that size, I don't see much advantage to the VLANs. You'll
save a few ports by having the inter-switch links shared, at the expense of
contention on those links.
Hi
For a large network (say 100 servers and 2500 disks), are there any
strong advantages to using separate switch and physical network
instead of VLAN?
Also, how difficult it would be to switch from a VLAN to using
separate switches later?
-Sreenath
___
