Solved!
Go to SolutionNS120 FS Network and interface utilization
I have a FS network created using 3 of the 4 1GB interface on my primary datamove, the problem is I only see traffic going across two of the three:
I'm trying to understand why nothing is going across cge2? here is how my network device is defined:
The box is primarily being used for ISCSI, have some NFS, but during the day, when this shoot was taken, its 100% NFS traffic, the only thing I was thinking was because maybe since I only have two targets defined on the box, each target sticks with a particular interface? That wouldnt seem right, but am looking for some advice:
571
0
Posted October 5th, 2010 10:00
[nasadmin@mi-mke-imccs ~]$ server_sysconfig server_2 -virtual -info trk0server_2 :*** Trunk trk0: Link is Up ****** Trunk trk0: Timeout is Short ****** Trunk trk0: Statistical Load Balancing is IP ***Device Local Grp Remote Grp Link LACP Duplex Speed------------------------------------------------------------------------cge0 10000 1280 Up Up Full 1000 Mbscge1 10000 1280 Up Up Full 1000 Mbscge2 10000 1280 Up Up Full 1000 Mbs265
0
Posted October 5th, 2010 10:00
Gustavo,
but with 7 clients i would think it's very likely that the load should be distributed over the 3 links, that's what LACP is supposed to do, even if it's very low throughput.
571
0
Posted October 5th, 2010 10:00
If you change the statistical load balance to "TCP", you should see a more distributted load between all ports on the trunk.
See https://community.emc.com/docs/DOC-7034 .
But, as per your stats output above, it does not seem you are reaching the limit of the nics, so I doubt this will improve your overall performance.
Gustavo Barreto.
571
0
Posted October 5th, 2010 10:00
[nasadmin@mi-mke-imccs ~]$ server_sysconfig server_2 -vserver_2 :Virtual devices:fsn0 active=trk0 primary=trk0 standby=cge3trk0 devices=cge0 cge1 cge2 :protocol=lacpfsn failsafe nic devices : fsn0trk trunking devices : trk0571
0
Posted October 5th, 2010 10:00
Right now I have about 7 hosts that access a total of 14 file systems across two iscsi targets, mostly sql server luns and vmfs luns. Is there a more optimal setup for a more distributed approach across all the nics, or is it like you said, not necessarily a problem, just how its designed. I was looking into possible performance issue, and its the main reason I noticed the infrequant use of the one nic
265
0
Posted October 5th, 2010 10:00
any thoughts then dynamox on why i might not be seeing better distribution?
571
0
Posted October 5th, 2010 10:00
Hi,
please, post the output of :
# server_sysconfig server_2 -v
Gustavo Barreto.
571
0
Posted October 5th, 2010 10:00
Hi,
So, you have a trunk composed by three ports using LACP with load balance "IP", and one FSN with this trunk as primary and cge3 as standby path.Link aggregations provide more overall bandwidth, but any single client only communicates through one port and is limited to the bandwidth of that port.
Therefore, you might not see any traffic in one port, and this is not necessarily a problem.
Also, since the statistical load balance is set to IP ( which is the default ), the dm will use the source and destination IP addresses of the outbound packet to select the link. It is effective when remote hosts are on the local LANs or reached through routers.
How many clients you have accessing the Celerra ?
Gustavo Barreto.536
0
Posted October 5th, 2010 10:00
appreciate all the good information. so i was wrong to assume that creating multiple iscsi targets would help distribute the load coming in? or no?
gbarretoxx1
2 Intern
•
366 Posts
571
0
Posted October 5th, 2010 10:00
Also, if you have only 7 clients acessing the Celerra, there is a real chance one link is not being used at all....