Sharing iSCSI NIC with Live Migration Traffic

Alle Antworten

• Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2013 20:28

   

   
  

  0
  Before I answer your actual question, I'll ask one of my own. It may actually be less complicated and easier to manage if you do failover clustering (since you already have backend shared storage). Not that I want to drive you away from your plan, but is there a reason you don't go that route?
  • Antworten
  • Zitieren

   
• Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2013 20:50

   

   
  

  0

  Clustering is the end goal for sure.  We're new to the blade to iSCSI SAN game (been doing host with DAS for years) & are just trying to get a few blades going to test some things out.  I understand the clustering network requirements would pose a similar challenge for us in that it may not be advisable to use 10GB for any of the LM, cluster or heartbeat traffic, but it's hard to adhere to that with only a set number of NICs.

  If clustering is less complicated in the long run I'd strongly consider setting it up right away.  More than anything I'm just concerned about utilizing the 10GB for anything other than iSCSI at this point just due to lack of experience in this area.

  Thanks again. - jb

  • Antworten
  • Zitieren

   
• Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2013 21:16

   

   
  

  0

  We've got a blade server connected to an iSCSI SAN.  The blade has (6) total ports, 4x1GB ports & 2x10GB, & the 10GB ports will be used for iSCSI connectivity configured with MPIO.  The blade is running Server 2012 Hyper-V.

  I'd like to utilize the 10GB network for both iSCSI & "Shared Nothing" Live Migration (we're not looking at failover clustering quite yet) but am wondering if anyone else has a similar setup & if you'd advise for/against it?  I understand it's always best practice to dedicate physical NICs for iSCSI when possible, but as the blade is a bit "port challenged" I'd love to take advantage of the 10GB speed for VM transfers.  If that's not advisable I'll likely just team the (4) 1GB ports & then just route LM transfers over it along with all the normal Guest/OS traffic.

  Thanks in advance. -jb

  As long as you'll create a bunch of VLANs with a different subnetworks you'll be fine. Pretty clumsy way to utilize your existig hardware setup (I'd consider running DAS-to-SAN emulation software to create fault tolerant SAN from DAS you have still using 10 GbE connection as a sync backbone) but should work.

  ---

  StarWind iSCSI SAN & NAS

  • Antworten
  • Zitieren

   
• Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2013 21:26

   

   
  

  0

  Well it's a little less complicated to set up (especially in 2012), and you get great benefits. Live migration with shared storage is obviously much faster than without. You will also have a central management point of all your VM's (cluster manager) or better yet, you can start testing out VMM. As for your concerns for the 10GbE setup, you can certainly utilize it for other traffics, but I'd suggest implementing some QOS policies so you don't grind performance to a halt if you're doing something that will somehow choke that pipe (unlikely) :)

  • Als Antwort markiert jballgame Donnerstag, 14. Februar 2013 15:26
  •  
  • Antworten
  • Zitieren

   
• Donnerstag, 14. Februar 2013 15:26

   

   
  

  0

  Thank you both.  I'll plan on using 10Gb for multiple traffic types along with QoS bandwidth management.

  • Antworten
  • Zitieren