[pve-devel] has somebody already tested corosync3 alpha et new knet transport ?

Alexandre DERUMIER aderumier at odiso.com
Wed Jun 27 09:47:36 CEST 2018


>>I am a bit scared by those benchmarks. They test with up to 4 nodes, and 
>>conclude that 
>>they do not need multicast?! IMHO, it's quite obvious that you do not need 
>>multicast 
>>for such small clusters, but it is essential if you want bigger clusters - else 
>>you will 
>>produce too much traffic on the net. 

do you see so much traffic on your proxmox test clusters ?

Currently, on my 20 proxmox nodes clusters, with unicast, I'm around 1mbit/s rx/tx on each node.


I would like to see latency benchmark with knet and more nodes.








----- Mail original -----
De: "dietmar" <dietmar at proxmox.com>
À: "aderumier" <aderumier at odiso.com>, "Thomas Lamprecht" <t.lamprecht at proxmox.com>, "pve-devel" <pve-devel at pve.proxmox.com>
Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Juin 2018 09:24:35
Objet: Re: [pve-devel] has somebody already tested corosync3 alpha et new knet transport ?

> http://people.redhat.com/ccaulfie/docs/KnetCorosync.pdf 
> 
> 
> Other options in the interface section do just what you might expect. 
> mcastport: <n> 
> tells knet to use that port number <n> for communication,. The default 
> remains the old one of 5405 
> +linknumber, but you can override it per link here. Even though knet doesn't 
> do actual multicasting 
> the name remains for old time's sake 
> 
> 
> If it's really working without multicast, with lower latencies, that's a big 
> improvement :) 

I am a bit scared by those benchmarks. They test with up to 4 nodes, and 
conclude that 
they do not need multicast?! IMHO, it's quite obvious that you do not need 
multicast 
for such small clusters, but it is essential if you want bigger clusters - else 
you will 
produce too much traffic on the net. 



More information about the pve-devel mailing list