Does it makes sense to split Gossip from Thrift network

[Steffen Winther <ca...@siimnet.dk>]

Hi

Wondering if if makes sense to split network for client traffic vs
Gossip/Internode traffic (possible with larger MTU for storage traffic).

So I tried this:

- Gossip storage listener (port 700x) on one network
- Thrift/CQL listeners (port 9160/9042) on another

Only I find it a bit confusing to control exactly this,
specially when trying to configure OpsCenter and agents.

Are they any good doc pointers for splitting network?

TIA

Re: Does it makes sense to split Gossip from Thrift network

[Steffen Winther <ca...@siimnet.dk>]

daemeon reiydelle <daemeonr <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>If your cluster is typical, your most critical resource is your
>network bandwidth,
>if this is the case, I would not do this split you are proposing.
>One issue with large MTU's is that they are often split
>at the switch fabric.
Got control of my switches, they allow max mtu

>Switches are not generally known for having processors that are idle,
>so this actually slows DOWN throughput to busy nodes.
Well...
again guess it depends on what packet sizes Gossip are

> I would also be concerned that in many cases the SAME
>nodes are supposed to be identifiable as
>the SAME Gossip and Thrift related node.
Okay nice to known

>When you set them up as different IP's I think you will will
>have additional issues.
Might be the cause for my troubles getting OpsCenter to work properly,
though I finally got it semi to work...
 
> What is the use case you are trying to solve with this configuration?
Better latency for client traffic by separating gossip off to its own network

>If Thrift is flooding your network port, then taking away bandwidth
>(assuming you are bonding?) seems contra productive.
>Unless you have not yet tried bonding?
I'm planing on bonding both networks in production
for redundancy, but currently not in test lab
 

Re: Does it makes sense to split Gossip from Thrift network

[daemeon reiydelle <da...@gmail.com>]

If your cluster is typical, your most critical resource is your network
bandwidth, if this is the case, I would not do this split you are
proposing. One issue with large MTU's is that they are often split at the
switch fabric. Switches are not generally known for having processors that
are idle, so this actually slows DOWN throughput to busy nodes.

I would also be concerned that in many cases the SAME nodes are supposed to
be identifiable as the SAME Gossip and Thrift related node. When you set
them up as different IP's I think you will will have additional issues.

What is the use case you are trying to solve with this configuration? If
Thrift is flooding your network port, then taking away bandwidth (assuming
you are bonding?) seems contraproductive. Unless you have not yet tried
bonding?



*.......*






*“Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving
safely in apretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside
in a cloud of smoke,thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly
proclaiming “Wow! What a Ride!” - Hunter ThompsonDaemeon C.M. ReiydelleUSA
(+1) 415.501.0198London (+44) (0) 20 8144 9872*

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Steffen Winther <ca...@siimnet.dk>
wrote:

> Hi
>
> Wondering if if makes sense to split network for client traffic vs
> Gossip/Internode traffic (possible with larger MTU for storage traffic).
>
> So I tried this:
>
> - Gossip storage listener (port 700x) on one network
> - Thrift/CQL listeners (port 9160/9042) on another
>
> Only I find it a bit confusing to control exactly this,
> specially when trying to configure OpsCenter and agents.
>
> Are they any good doc pointers for splitting network?
>
> TIA
>
>