On 2012-11-18 00:14, Richard Elling wrote:
LACP is link aggregation control protocol, which can be optionally used to
help manage Ethernet link aggregations (IEEE 802.3ad, later 802.1AX).
The IEEE standard is for link aggregation, which is why they are named
aggregations in illumos/Solaris OSes.
On Nov 16, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
> On 2012-11-17 00:46, Roel_D wrote:
>> How about teaming? Is it supported under OI?
>
>
> My memory serves me not worse than google: teaming is one of the
> umbrella terms to describe what is implemented by LACP - a means
> of representing several
On 2012-11-17 02:03, Michael Stapleton wrote:
FYI, there is a setting that controls how Solaris balances the frames
across the links in the aggregation.
IP, MAC or round robbin.
Network nodes (like switches) on the other side of the cable are part
of the problem. It is them that decide how to
FYI, there is a setting that controls how Solaris balances the frames
across the links in the aggregation.
IP, MAC or round robbin.
Mike
On Sat, 2012-11-17 at 01:19 +0100, Jim Klimov wrote:
> On 2012-11-17 00:46, Roel_D wrote:
> > How about teaming? Is it supported under OI?
>
>
> My memory
On 2012-11-17 00:46, Roel_D wrote:
How about teaming? Is it supported under OI?
My memory serves me not worse than google: teaming is one of the
umbrella terms to describe what is implemented by LACP - a means
of representing several hardware links as one logical NIC with
increased reliability
How about teaming? Is it supported under OI?
Kind regards,
The out-side
Op 16 nov. 2012 om 17:57 heeft Brian Hechinger het
volgende geschreven:
> On Nov 16, 2012, at 11:33, Jim Klimov wrote:
>
>> On 2012-11-16 13:12, Brian Hechinger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Have you considered vlan trunking?
On Nov 16, 2012, at 11:33, Jim Klimov wrote:
> On 2012-11-16 13:12, Brian Hechinger wrote:
>>
>>
>> Have you considered vlan trunking?
>
> As he said, they have an external and an internal network segment.
> It might be an architectural or even a political/compliance requirement
> to keep the
On 2012-11-16 13:12, Brian Hechinger wrote:
On Nov 16, 2012, at 9:35, Florian wrote:
Hi,
The Problem with the BladeCenter is, that there are only two network ports an
all blades, for two switches. It is possible put put two more switches in it,
but have to buy than extra network cards for a
On Nov 16, 2012, at 9:35, Florian wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The Problem with the BladeCenter is, that there are only two network ports an
> all blades, for two switches. It is possible put put two more switches in it,
> but have to buy than extra network cards for all blades.
>
> Maybe, I can talk to
Hi,
I know, that you are right!
Here are some background informations:
We have an IBM BladeCenter E with two Cisco switches. Switch one is for
the outside network traffic and switch two is for the storage network.
There is no special configuration for the second switch, only a
configured ethe
On Friday, November 16, 2012 07:05 PM, Florian wrote:
Hi,
I don't know where is your problem? You don't know our network
infrastructure.
It is not so easy to have two redundant switches, no it is even not
possible.
It would be nice, if we can have two redundant switches, but this was
not my
Hi,
I don't know where is your problem? You don't know our network
infrastructure.
It is not so easy to have two redundant switches, no it is even not
possible.
It would be nice, if we can have two redundant switches, but this was
not my question!
Sorry, if my first answer was rude to you,
@Alex Smith: Single target is SPOF (Sigle point of failure)! And sometimes
is necessary to reboot target without bringing down all datacenter.
Regards Andrej
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 4:36 AM, Alex Smith (K4RNT)
wrote:
> If the targets are mirrored via ZFS and COMSTAR, why would the Linux host
>
On Friday, November 16, 2012 11:36 AM, Alex Smith (K4RNT) wrote:
If the targets are mirrored via ZFS and COMSTAR, why would the Linux host
require RAID? If it's using iSCSI anyway, wouldn't the Linux volume
management just needlessly redundantize the data, that ZFS is mirroring
already?
Or do I
If the targets are mirrored via ZFS and COMSTAR, why would the Linux host
require RAID? If it's using iSCSI anyway, wouldn't the Linux volume
management just needlessly redundantize the data, that ZFS is mirroring
already?
Or do I not understand your problem, or how ZFS works?
My apologies if I'm
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 08:23 PM, Florian wrote:
Am 15.11.2012 13:15, schrieb Jorge Palma:
raid1 at the OS level, but SPOF on network level.
This is no Problem, I change a switch in 5 minutes, but the Server
takes much longer.
This was not my question! Thanks for the not helping h
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 08:23 PM, Florian wrote:
Am 15.11.2012 13:15, schrieb Jorge Palma:
raid1 at the OS level, but SPOF on network level.
This is no Problem, I change a switch in 5 minutes, but the Server
takes much longer.
This was not my question! Thanks for the not helping h
Performance will be higher or lower then 125MB/s. It depends on the filesizes
and file-type since ISCSI does some buffer and compression.
I had 125MB/s for some files over a 2Mb/s SDSL line. But that declined to
30Kb/s when the buffers ran full.
Kind regards,
The out-side
Op 15 nov. 2012 o
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Florian wrote:
> Hello,
>
> has someone experience with Linux software-raid with two Comstar iSCSI
> volumes from two OI servers?
>
> I tested this on a virtual machine, but it would be great, if I can get
> some experience with such a combination!
>
> Will this
On 11/15/2012 12:38 PM, Florian wrote:
> Hello,
>
> has someone experience with Linux software-raid with two Comstar iSCSI
> volumes from two OI servers?
>
> I tested this on a virtual machine, but it would be great, if I can get
> some experience with such a combination!
>
> Will this work wit
Am 15.11.2012 13:15, schrieb Jorge Palma:
raid1 at the OS level, but SPOF on network level.
This is no Problem, I change a switch in 5 minutes, but the Server takes
much longer.
This was not my question! Thanks for the not helping help!!!
El 15/11/2012 08:38, "Florian" escribió:
Hell
raid1 at the OS level, but SPOF on network level.
El 15/11/2012 08:38, "Florian" escribió:
> Hello,
>
> has someone experience with Linux software-raid with two Comstar iSCSI
> volumes from two OI servers?
>
> I tested this on a virtual machine, but it would be great, if I can get
> some exp
Hello,
has someone experience with Linux software-raid with two Comstar iSCSI
volumes from two OI servers?
I tested this on a virtual machine, but it would be great, if I can get
some experience with such a combination!
Will this work without problems? The Linux Server is connected through
23 matches
Mail list logo
