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

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

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

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

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

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