anton (staff) wrote:Pair of 10 GbE cards cross-connected to each other (w/o a switch) is not going to break the bank. But HA performance should be boosted dramatically.

Can you cross connect dual-port 10GbE cards in a static-link aggregation? I thought a switch was needed for that?

Thanks,

Kurt

Right, but you would think that if UPS's were configured for 5 minute staggered clean shutdowns, (using the UPS software) the fast sync logs could track that server 2 went down first and a few minutes later server 1 went down and the change rate was low enough (due to the ups software first shutting...

I understand the remove targets and re-add, but that is just tough to know when the power is going to fail :) I already have bonded 1GB pairs for the Sync channel, but I was curious if there would be a noticeable improvement if bonded pairs for SYNC were dedicated and different for each .img The pro...

That is good... Which path is StarWind heading down, throttling settings for full-sync, or fast-sync after clean shutdown? Also, if the cache has writes replicated between partners, is that happening over the sync channel? i.e. Is every Host writing to both HA partners over the SAN channel, or is th...

OK, great. One small feature request would be the ability to set throttle percentages or priority on the full-sync. In heavy testing with bonded 1GB links, I notice that read/write performance isn't even enough to keep a virtual machine responding during a full-sync. I don't know which would be easi...

In the current version of 5.5 if you have a decent size write-back cache of say 1GB for an HA target and one of the HA servers crashes, what is the result? I understand that the each partner should have redundant power supplies, different UPS's, etc. But even in a perfect world a motherboard can go ...

I had hoped it would use both as well, but in all our tests LACP and SLA bonds will keep each individual TCP session to 1 leg of the bond. If there is a network wiz out there that knows a way around this I am all ears! Those numbers were from NTTCP and I can test again both directions, but regardles...

960.07 Mbps and sub 1ms latency during the test

anton (staff) wrote:First question is - how fast your cross-link actually is? Can you run iPerf & NTTcp over the bound connection to see how much data it can pump and what latency it has?

If I were to run these on a live system (with the VM's paused) do these tools have the potential to take down my sync channel?

One of our client's current configs is below... -4x DL160 G5/G6 Hyper-V cluster hosts -Quad port Intel Gigibet ET NIC 2 ports in a Static Link Aggregation bond for iSCSI access, 1 for Heartbeat, 1 for Hyper-V, onboard for mgmt -2x ML350 G6 Starwind Hosts in HA set -Dual port Intel Gigabit ET NIC in ...

That is exactly how we have all our HA's setup. So until the performance is usable for high random write environments, would mirroring perform any better? Or would that still be limited by the dual writes?

I definitely will stay tuned, but what is best pratice to squeeze every bit of performance out of current versions? Do the MPIO settings or pointing to different primary vs secondary HA img's on the same array matter? Also if performance out o HA just isn't enough, how does the mirror mode work? Is ...

That is why I am wondering if the MPIO adjustments will really help. We run perf monitors on the Starwind hosts and disk queue length is non-existent during times of high load. Yet inside a Hyper-V VM running in a Starwind hosted cluster, the disk queues go up to 30-35. We have one setup with an 8 d...

That is good info, I believe all our Hyper-V clusters are setup with Round Robin to the Starwind HA. Is there a performance benefit to go failover only? And if so what is the downside from a actual failure standpoint?

Could you provide more details on the MPIO setup you are using? A lot of our installations were done by Bob when he was there.