| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| PiotrIr |
Posted - 09/14/2008 : 4:28:41 PM
Hi,
I’m building High Available solution using Hyper-V and Microsoft Fail over cluster. My target is to double all hardware to eliminate single point of failure. I know how to provide iSCSI network redundancy, heart beat network redundancy. I also know how to set up firewall redundancy.
Unfortunately weak point in my plan is public network redundancy. I tried to find any solution for eliminating single switch and NIC point of failure (as far as I know I can use teaming due not compatibility with Hyper-V issue). In my opinion it is quite probable that one NIC or switch will be down (especially that I met Cisco switch completely stopped to work). Only advice I’ve got is to provide second, stand bay network and when I will find NIC or switch be down I can manually change virtual switch to another adapter (it is not solution I’m looking for. It has to be automatic process).
However I have still hope someone can give me answer for this question.
Best Regards
|
| 18 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| digg1980 |
Posted - 10/03/2009 : 2:42:17 PM
Although Hyper-V is not my big thing, but I just came across a post which seems to cover Hyper-V networking in deep details & thought it might be useful to you check it out at:
http://www.virtualizationteam.com/microsoft/hyper-v/microsoft-windows-2008-hyper-v-rtm-installation-configuraiton-step-by-step-part-2.html
I hope it give you what you are looking for :).
Enjoy,
Erick |
| drexciya |
Posted - 10/22/2008 : 04:07:08 AM
Microsoft should do something about this, if only for fail over. It's ridiculous that they leave it up to third parties whereas VMware does it out of the box.
You might get around this if you would use hardware level functionality (trunking, bonding whatever they call it), especially in blades. |
| daveyd |
Posted - 09/26/2008 : 2:29:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Playwell
Rediculous if you think about it
100% agree. Why not have a 100% complete failover solution?? If my switch goes down or a NIC that is tied to a VM goes down, why wouldn't you want a failover to occur???
Pretty dumb. |
| Playwell |
Posted - 09/26/2008 : 08:19:58 AM
Rediculous if you think about it |
| daveyd |
Posted - 09/26/2008 : 08:07:14 AM
Here is a response I got on another forum...
Basically, this is a current limitation of the cluster resource monitor for the Hyper-V resources in cluster. The resource monitor does not check all the important details like network connectivity inside of Hyper-V.
To work around this, you could add an IP address resource to your Hyper-V application group. This way, if a network connectivity issue occurs, this IP address resource would fail causing the VM to move to the other node.
|
| PiotrIr |
Posted - 09/26/2008 : 04:24:52 AM
So you have the same problem like everybody :-(
Could you let me know if you will find any solution please?
|
| daveyd |
Posted - 09/25/2008 : 2:04:44 PM
I do not use teaming at all.
I did find out that if I yank a cable from the active node PE1 [Intel NIC1] it will not failover. That kind of seems dumb to me cuz if a switch would go down, then the VM would not failover.
I suppose I could create an IP resource and add it to the Hyper-V application group |
| PiotrIr |
Posted - 09/19/2008 : 11:27:45 AM
Daveyd it sounds good :-)
Do you use teaming? What will happened when PE1 [Intel NIC1] will be down? Will it switch automatically Hyper-V switch to PE1 [Intel NIC2] or do you need to do this manually?
|
| daveyd |
Posted - 09/19/2008 : 11:06:46 AM
I have a 2 node 2008 Hyper-V host cluster setup with an iSCSI SAN
My equipment:
2x Dell PE2950s (each with 2 embedded Broadcom NICs and each with a 3 Intel NICs)
2x Cisco 3750s for iSCSI network
2x Cisco 3750s for Public network
Dell MD3000i iSCSI SAN
My config:
PE1 [Bcom NIC1] to iSCSI3750[1] port 1
PE1 [Bcom NIC2] to iSCSI3750[2] port 1
PE2 [Bcom NIC1] to iSCSI3750[1] port 2
PE2 [Bcom NIC2] to iSCSI3750[2] port 2
Dell3000i [Controller1, NIC1, Controller2, NIC1] to iSCSI3750[1]
Dell3000i [Controller1, NIC2, Controller2, NIC2] to iSCSI3750[2]
PE1 [Intel NIC1] to Public3750[1] Port1
PE1 [Intel NIC2] to Public3750[2] Port1
PE2 [Intel NIC1] to Public3750[1] Port2
PE2 [Intel NIC2] to Public3750[2] Port2
PE1 and PE2 [Intel NIC3] cluster heartbeat
I haven't had too many issues and am pretty redundant.
|
| PiotrIr |
Posted - 09/16/2008 : 09:18:03 AM
Please tell me how to press tem so I will do it. Any way it will take probably long time to fix this problem and I need this ASAP:-( |
| joe_elway |
Posted - 09/16/2008 : 08:55:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by PiotrIr
Any way did you find any method to provide NIC redundancy (I don’t care about load balancing)?
Nope. I'm waiting on the OEM's to provide updated software. There needs to be pressure on them from the likes of us. |
| PiotrIr |
Posted - 09/16/2008 : 08:19:18 AM
Yes, it is really sad. Hopefully this boat won’t sink…
Any way did you find any method to provide NIC redundancy (I don’t care about load balancing)? I wonder also about switch fail and network teaming supposed to help in this issue.
|
| joe_elway |
Posted - 09/16/2008 : 08:12:06 AM
I believe you're in the same boat as the rest of us. No NIC teaming native in Windows and the OEM's have pretented that Hyper-V doesn't exisit. I'm using Broadcom NIC's on HP h/w and have no teaming. |
| PiotrIr |
Posted - 09/16/2008 : 07:31:04 AM
I found thisƒ¼
Hyper-V Virtual Networking not functional on Broadcom Network Adapters with
BACS-based teaming and VLANs
You can use the Broadcom Advanced Control Suite (BACS) software to team
multiple adapters to offer fault-tolerance and load-balancing capabilities.
Hyper-V virtual networks that are bound to network adapters configured with
BACS-based teaming or VLANs may not be functional and may disrupt
network traffic from virtual machines to the external network.
There is currently no workaround to support Hyper-V virtual networking on
BACS-based teams or VLANs. A resolution may be available in a future
release. Dell currently does not support BACS-based Teams or VLANs on
network adapters bound to Hyper-V virtual networks.
This post is from July so maybe something has changed. It was very interesting about his new drivers I can use and disabling load balancing. It seems to be good way¡K Could you give me some more details please? Maybe source I can read more about this¡K
|
| PiotrIr |
Posted - 09/15/2008 : 07:22:50 AM
Basically what you are saying is when I disable Load Balancing on teaming it will work on any network adapter? It is good news for me.
What about switch configuration. Do I need special switches for this as for LB NIC teaming?
|
| wkasdo |
Posted - 09/15/2008 : 05:59:05 AM
Sorry, Dell is not my thing... anyone?
Should be configurable somewhere in the teaming drivers.
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/network/P29352/English/teaming.htm
|
| PiotrIr |
Posted - 09/15/2008 : 04:16:48 AM
Many, many thanks for this reply. It is giving me a hope.
I’m going to use DELL servers, (probably PowerEdge 2950 III). I don’t care about load balancing but I would like to be sure fail over is working perfectly. Could you give me some additional information about this set up please? I didn’t even know it is possible to set up only fail over in timing…. Is any link relating to this problem?
|
| wkasdo |
Posted - 09/15/2008 : 02:52:20 AM
> as far as I know I can use teaming due not compatibility with Hyper-V issue
Depends. With recent drivers, failover teaming tends to work. Load balancing does not. |
