I'll have to look. But I think there are ethernet controllers with small
switching fabric in them.
That might be a level of scaling that would maybe work.
On Sat, Oct 5, 2019, 9:15 AM Donald Mac McCarthy <
mac@oscontext.com> wrote:
> Kelly,
>
> Maybe I am missing something as to why this is a requirement. Is a ring
> configuration using RSTP a requirement? If that is the case, I haven't an
> answer that I think would help. I know RSTP allows for fast convergence of
> failure, I just haven't come across a case where the benefit mattered vs
> the complexity of scale. We tried to test RSTP when I was a cluster
> administrator at a university, (802.1W must be better than 802.1D right?)
> because a professor insisted that the performance of distributed operations
> would be better. This was a 4 rack cluster of ~70 nodes. The performance
> tanked. After a lot of trial and error, we settled on the architecture that
> I am attaching a drawing of using STP.
>
> If redundancy and ease of operation is what you want - I would use
> redundant switches and us Linux to create a bonded interface that is in an
> active-passive state. You will have to use a non LACP bond (teaming) as
> LACP does not work across switches. Your switch's backplane and uplinks
> will be the only bottlenecks that would occur in the network. Most
> enterprise switch manufactures build a backplane that can handle the
> traffic that is possible to send through the all the ports combined at
> theoretical max.
>
> 2 switches that have 2 or 4 port LACP bonds or if you use switches that
> have proprietary stacking cables, use the stacking cable. Also have an LACP
> to upstream switching as well.
>
> Hopefully the drawing attahed will help.
>
> I have run clusters of over 2500 nodes with a nearly identical
> configuration. We used 4x 10Gb per node, 2 LACP bonds per node into 48 port
> switches. Those switches had a 6x 40Gb uplinks that were split in LACP to 2
> top of rack switches. Top of rack switches had 100Gb uplinks to core. At
> the core were multiple internal networks as well as multiple wan
> connections.
>
> My point in talking about the size and speed is not to brag (well, kinda -
> don't we all like cool toys), but to point out that this architecture will
> work with 1Gb switches and machines of 6 nodes all the way to thousands of
> nodes with bigger uplinks. You can scale the switching as your hardware
> changes and scales. The architecture remains the same.
>
> If you are only using 100 nodes, you have less complication. As for plug
> and play like behavior, as long as you don't mac lock the switchports - the
> switches wont care what you plug into them as long as the NICs are properly
> configured.
>
> Hope this helps. If I have missed something - I hope someone else finds
> this useful.
>
> Mac
>
> kelly stephenson wrote on 10/4/19 3:34 PM:
>
> Looking for some networking advice from the group.
>
> The system I have has several devices connected in a ring configuration
> using one Ethernet port IN and one Ethernet port out. The system uses RSTP
> for loop free operation. The idea is simplicity for installation, you just
> unplug and plugin a new device in the ring plus you gain redundancy, if one
> Ethernet cable breaks you still have another one. This works but my client
> has never had more then a half dozen devices on the network yet.
> When I say devices just imagine very large machines. The number of
> devices could be as many as 100 in the ring or network. Everything I've
> researched on RSTP says over 8 devices and its not effective/efficient so
> I'm researching other Ethernet failover/failsafe/redundant solutions.
> So, the local network configuration needs to scale up to 100 devices, have
> redundancy, and low latency for M2M control. Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks
> Kelly
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)