From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09100721A2 for ; Sun, 22 May 2022 03:30:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F38F1264AE for ; Sun, 22 May 2022 03:30:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-yb1-xb34.google.com (mail-yb1-xb34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b34]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 16C722649C for ; Sun, 22 May 2022 03:30:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-yb1-xb34.google.com with SMTP id t26so19838459ybt.3 for ; Sat, 21 May 2022 18:30:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=9IlnXZm2TvnP25UVKacT06RmCdSdUgPC18vKWoQa90Y=; b=OACDXybToNPUV7auuW+QtTSnR1J93YnRck267bcky8b1MAIGSp8jo92Fft3x38ABl0 EFTqElbvl12ebkLqYQdbrh9o6kod81c/+Fb5PtYovaTUN7EQpo2dV5jVSt+WscdCxjk9 0MHrA9F3nWk/hAMyYGTT0Ed2StB1AwdQH4i4YBxL23GcyLJI3oBg5jqHJEh1o8UdBiEZ RhoP+ATjgra7cMqA/IyYRr9MY2IBWCLMSliSNJqXSTAC6sIDR3AcfpiBY47AhUn4zHaC GQN66cURTgan0VkRYSQQMToDcrX12VaV6Y8jjG9PPJW7uxfc3rEH+YF+bVeMidEmFduC SYkg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=9IlnXZm2TvnP25UVKacT06RmCdSdUgPC18vKWoQa90Y=; b=tRJtOOpqm4G0ZBBW+HoSlMLY3uEKi0kD6MMTizZQA64SSGdrgXBAPnPwQ4dBU9a63S t9GVTf/ghON7AylgK6R/sxR0eVHrjwvQqrCHEOWn2MRPa+NVb5JVMpEGhTAN7O6CW6zK 8OJ8ogQMUmZpZuQJ/mDpSR9sdjzpCxmFzvWjzjvKqu11Afg/+FQcu+hwfOT/n+ncW2aL SgIdVIbi1ZeenudimBUED9KB27d6dqBvw20YZnp7gdkT+N7CATDpOCxokLrKhjptFMHm GDzPvmT0pgqYUvVKJ2I4Snc+hD3MRRiGEUVhA4sBROl+uWMRryzjphUu36+71ydA5MLz xquA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533+wxWx1/w8rc/6/yMgOs/d2uT++ASvyLqZzxh6cySD96X2nJYw OmyuaCKPWDCcLzV/xT78DQcOaEiAjgli2o16v4Bo7qG4LPgv X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxafIp+Mu71bxuniOy1uLVq1bU7MicDmgbh4QnL//kJCrf2Z1bakwWFbTOjO3rF6yTTHNbHp8eqNNHGhJmVJ/Q= X-Received: by 2002:a5b:84b:0:b0:64a:79d8:eccd with SMTP id v11-20020a5b084b000000b0064a79d8eccdmr15586899ybq.476.1653183010391; Sat, 21 May 2022 18:30:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Laurent Dumont Date: Sat, 21 May 2022 21:29:58 -0400 Message-ID: To: Proxmox VE user list X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain FREEMAIL_FROM 0.001 Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider HTML_MESSAGE 0.001 HTML included in message POISEN_SPAM_PILL_4 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE -0.0001 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: [PVE-User] Experimenting with bond on a non-LACP switch... X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 01:30:19 -0000 It's not made very clear from the documentation. I assume there are good technical reasons why the cluster traffic would be impacted. Afaik, proxmox leverages corosync which can leverage multicast for the cluster checks. I don't think it can be badly impacted by LACP but something to keep in mind. There is this old thread with a similar discussion : https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/cluster-lacp.90668/ On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 4:10 AM Marco Gaiarin wrote: > > I'm doing some experimentation on a switch that seems does not support > LACP, > even thus claim that; is a Netgear GS724Tv2: > > > https://www.downloads.netgear.com/files/GDC/GS724Tv2/enus_ds_gs724t.pdf > > data sheet say: > > Port Trunking - Manual as per IEEE802.3ad Link Aggregation > > and 'IEEE802.3ad Link Aggregation' is LACP, right? > > > Anyway, i'm experimenting a bit with other bonding mode, having > (un)expected > results and troubles, but in: > > https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Network_Configuration#_linux_bond > > i've stumble upon that sentence: > > If you intend to run your cluster network on the bonding > interfaces, then you have to use active-passive mode on the bonding > interfaces, other modes are unsupported. > > What exactly mean?! Thanks. > > -- > Molti italiani sognavano di vedere Berlusconi in un cellulare, > prima o poi... (Stardust=C2=AE, da i.n.n-a) > > > > _______________________________________________ > pve-user mailing list > pve-user@lists.proxmox.com > https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user > >