*New 11.4 series Release:
2020-07-03: XigmaNAS 11.4.0.4.7633 - released!

*New 12.1 series Release:
2020-04-17: XigmaNAS 12.1.0.4.7542 - released


We really need "Your" help on XigmaNAS https://translations.launchpad.net/xigmanas translations. Please help today!

Producing and hosting XigmaNAS costs money. Please consider donating for our project so that we can continue to offer you the best.
We need your support! eg: PAYPAL

Static link aggregation - Port trunk vs. iSCSI multi path

NIC, network controllers, compatibility questions, WOL, wake on lan
Forum rules
Set-Up GuideFAQsForum Rules
Post Reply
User avatar
STAMSTER
Starter
Starter
Posts: 72
Joined: 23 Feb 2014 15:58
Status: Offline

Static link aggregation - Port trunk vs. iSCSI multi path

#1

Post by STAMSTER »

Hello,
I'm considering upgrade for one segment of my network with a managed switch. To be precise - I have N4F Supermicro server with 2 Gbit/s onboard cards, and I want to take advantage of LACP/LAGG.
LACP bonds Ethernet connections in order to improve bandwidth. For example, four physical interfaces can be used to create one mega interface. However, it cannot increase the bandwidth for a single conversation. It is designed to increase bandwidth when multiple clients are simultaneously accessing the same system. It also assumes that quality Ethernet hardware is used and it will not make much difference when using inferior Ethernet chipsets such as a Realtek.
This entry level switch would make a perfect shot for my setup.

http://www.tp-link.com/en/products/deta ... L-SG1016DE

It does support Static link aggregation - Port trunk, is that what it is for my Nas4Free setup?

It would look like this:
Image

On the other side there would be ESXi server with 3 dedicated LAN cards (1 dedicated for storage adapter traffic) running through iSCSI.

I wonder if it would be better to setup different iSCSI path for different group of VM's, and to target both LAN interfaces on the N4S side?
This way i.e. VM1 with App1 would use iSCSI path 1 connected through N4F LAN 1 (destination XX GB's of VDEV 1 - ZFS mirror of 2 drives).
And VM2 with App2 would use iSCSI path 2 connected through N4F LAN 2 (destination XX GB's of VDEV 2 - ZFS mirror of 2 drives).

Like a highway with two tracks, different vehicles, different road blocks, both ways running together :)
rIPMI

User avatar
b0ssman
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2454
Joined: 14 Feb 2013 08:34
Location: Munich, Germany
Status: Offline

Re: Static link aggregation - Port trunk vs. iSCSI multi pat

#2

Post by b0ssman »

Lacp IEEE 802.3ad calculates a hash from source,destination and port.
this hash decides which interface in the lacp group to take.

so its possible that they take the same route or a different one.
Nas4Free 11.1.0.4.4517. Supermicro X10SLL-F, 16gb ECC, i3 4130, IBM M1015 with IT firmware. 4x 3tb WD Red, 4x 2TB Samsung F4, both GEOM AES 256 encrypted.

User avatar
STAMSTER
Starter
Starter
Posts: 72
Joined: 23 Feb 2014 15:58
Status: Offline

Re: Static link aggregation - Port trunk vs. iSCSI multi pat

#3

Post by STAMSTER »

So, you suggest that I stick with iSCSI multipathing, i.e. to manually divide group of Vmavchines to target N4F LAN 1 interface via Lan 1 hardware LAN adapter (ESXi storage adapter), and vice versa for Lan 2 adapters, respectably.
Stay with software implementation this way, without need for hardware L2 switch hardware etc.
rIPMI

User avatar
b0ssman
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2454
Joined: 14 Feb 2013 08:34
Location: Munich, Germany
Status: Offline

Re: Static link aggregation - Port trunk vs. iSCSI multi pat

#4

Post by b0ssman »

i am not sure if the iscsi load balancing works if the lacp is virtualized away.
Nas4Free 11.1.0.4.4517. Supermicro X10SLL-F, 16gb ECC, i3 4130, IBM M1015 with IT firmware. 4x 3tb WD Red, 4x 2TB Samsung F4, both GEOM AES 256 encrypted.

User avatar
STAMSTER
Starter
Starter
Posts: 72
Joined: 23 Feb 2014 15:58
Status: Offline

Re: Static link aggregation - Port trunk vs. iSCSI multi pat

#5

Post by STAMSTER »

?!
I didn't want to use both iSCSI multipath AND LACP ever.... I'm just wondering what would bring better results - iSCSI multipath OR LACP on a L2 switch... gonna give it a try with multipath since I don't have L2 switch at present.
rIPMI

mbze430
experienced User
experienced User
Posts: 95
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 05:41
Status: Offline

Re: Static link aggregation - Port trunk vs. iSCSI multi path

#6

Post by mbze430 »

what did you end up doing?

MPIO w/ iSCSI?

I am also debating what to do. I have a N4F with 4x 1Gb NIC that is currently all in a LACP that is my datastore. Then I have 2x ESXi host each has 2x 1Gb NIC that are static LAG. I am using a TP-Link TL-SG2216. I want to get more bandwidth between the 2xESXi host and the datastore. I have read that MPIO via iSCSI was the most valid option, since N4F doesn't support NFSv4.1 yet.
NAS #1 - 11.2.0.4 - Omnius (revision 6625) - SuperMicro X10SL7-F w/ 24GB ECC - LSI SAS 9207-16i - 2x RAIDZ1 (10x3TB) Pools and 1x (2x4TB) Stripe Pool
NAS #2 - 11.2.0.4 - Omnius (revision 6625) - SuperMicro X10SLM-F w/32GB ECC - LSI SAS 9207-8i (RAID10) - IBM M1015-IT Mode (RAID10)

User avatar
STAMSTER
Starter
Starter
Posts: 72
Joined: 23 Feb 2014 15:58
Status: Offline

Re: Static link aggregation - Port trunk vs. iSCSI multi path

#7

Post by STAMSTER »

Just go with iSCSI with MPIO and forget about LACP / Port trunking etc. :)

Just remember to use two separate networks (i.e. two separate GBps switches and respective subnets).
rIPMI

Post Reply

Return to “LAN , Network controllers”