• Please help support our sponsors by considering their products and services.
    Our sponsors enable us to serve you with this high-speed Internet connection and fast webservers you are currently using at ADSM.ORG.
    They support this free flow of information and knowledge exchange service at no cost to you.

    Please welcome our latest sponsor Tectrade . We can show our appreciation by learning more about Tectrade Solutions
  • Community Tip: Please Give Thanks to Those Sharing Their Knowledge.

    If you receive helpful answer on this forum, please show thanks to the poster by clicking "LIKE" link for the answer that you found helpful.

  • Community Tip: Forum Rules (PLEASE CLICK HERE TO READ BEFORE POSTING)

    Click the link above to access ADSM.ORG Acceptable Use Policy and forum rules which should be observed when using this website. Violators may be banned from this website. This notice will disappear after you have made at least 3 posts.

New TSM server

influx

Active Newcomer
#1
I have a new AIX server that has 4 dual ported NICS, attached to 2 switches. The server will host 4 TSM instances. I would like to present all 8 ports as a single IP address and control the data via the TCPPORT. My network group is proposing 4 vlans and stating that I can NOT implement etherchannel/link aggegation due to the 4 vlan's.
The reason I want 1 IP address is for ease of administration, load balancing across all 4 TSM instances, simplicity of failover (1 FQDN/DNS change). I'm considering asking them to change to one vlan so I can implement etherchannel. Is this reasonable? What are others doing? What is best practice? Thanks.
 

javajockey

ADSM.ORG Senior Member
#3
We're doing something similar to this but with 2 1G ports. Basically the process is the same.
smit etherchannel to configure your network interface. Influx is right. Etherchannel normally assumes there is one switch. There is an option for a backup interface. If you go that route, make sure it is on a separate switch. I would recommend using 6 interfaces as the primary, and 2 as a backup. Be vary careful on what mode you use. Your network guys need to work with you to get the best performance.
 
Last edited:

influx

Active Newcomer
#4
My network folks are warning against making one VLAN vs 4 VLANS. They've advised me that one big VLAN will cause too much broadcast traffic on the network and are concerned it will degrade throughput on my AIX server. Not sure of the validity of this statement/comment. Can anyone advise. Thanks.
 

javajockey

ADSM.ORG Senior Member
#5
I'm not a network engineer, but that does not make any sense. Etherchannel assumes that you have multiple interfaces are "bound" to a single IP. I don't see how it is even possible to have the interfaces on separate VLANS. As for broadcast traffic, make sure you have both the switch and etherchannel settings using either 802.ad or native cisco etherchannel. Aslo make sure the hash modes match. I've been using etherchannel for a while now, so far it's been great.
 

influx

Active Newcomer
#6
Javajockey,

Hmmm... maybe I should have restated the new issue. We have 4 fiberchannel ports on the server. The network folks are saying, create 4 VLANS and 4 distinct IP addresses. Initially I wanted 1 VLAN, and the 4 physical IP's "bonded" behind the one virtual. The network group advised that having one big VLAN could cause too much broadcast traffic on the network.
 

influx

Active Newcomer
#7
Tommy, can you expound on that last statement, "In theory, the statement from your network group that having one big VLAN could cause too much broadcast traffic is the opposite of the theory.... " I'm not sure I understand.
 

Mita201

ADSM.ORG Senior Member
#8
Influx,

Do you and your network guys speak common language? Do you understand each other well?
When you say "I want 4 eth ports from ONE computer (TSM server) agrregated (for bandwidth, failover, loadbalancing, whatever is your concern)" you are right.
When they said 4 VLANs are better than one big VLAN for less broadcast they are right too, but this is speaking about the network as whole, not about one computer with one IP address. So, you are both right, but not talking about same thing. It looks like you are talking about one host, and they are talking about whole network.
 

syntax44

ADSM.ORG Member
#9
Influx, I've removed my previous post as (after reading it again) it is partially wrong. The comment by Mita201 is wat I was trying to say as well.
 

Advertise at ADSM.ORG

If you are reading this, so are your potential customer. Advertise at ADSM.ORG right now.

UpCloud high performance VPS at $5/month

Get started with $25 in credits on Cloud Servers. You must use link below to receive the credit. Use the promo to get upto 5 month of FREE Linux VPS.

The Spectrum Protect TLA (Three-Letter Acronym): ISP or something else?

  • Every product needs a TLA, Let's call it ISP (IBM Spectrum Protect).

    Votes: 7 23.3%
  • Keep using TSM for Spectrum Protect.

    Votes: 16 53.3%
  • Let's be formal and just say Spectrum Protect

    Votes: 4 13.3%
  • Other (please comement)

    Votes: 3 10.0%

Forum statistics

Threads
30,889
Messages
131,422
Members
21,194
Latest member
jamesmacd40