RE: NIC binding vs IPMP for RAC interconnect
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:53:59 -0400
Thanks Freek and Senthil for the feedback. So, it seems that for a 2-node RAC cluster, either IPMP or NIC bonding can be used, whereas for a 2+n node RAC (where n > 0), bonding is the preferred method because the load-balancing feature of bonding will be utilized.
From: D'Hooge Freek [mailto:Freek.DHooge_at_uptime.be] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 3:06 AM
To: skumar.sen_at_gmail.com; Hameed, Amir Cc: <oracle-l_at_freelists.org>
Subject: RE: NIC binding vs IPMP for RAC interconnect
The load balancing will actually depend on the number of cluster nodes
in your configuration.
At the switch level an outgoing port is choosen based upon the mac address from the sender and/or receiver or the sender and/or receiver IP address (depending on switch type and configuration).
This means that if you have a one-to-one relation (2 node rac), only 1 cable worth of bandwidth is being used.
Oracle Database Administrator
tel +32(0)3 451 23 82
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Senthil Subramanian Sent: woensdag 28 maart 2012 1:34
Subject: Re: NIC binding vs IPMP for RAC interconnect
In a RAC system, you should take advantage of both SPOF and load balancing for your interconnects. The NIC bonding or teaming called link aggregation on Solaris platform. IPMP can only provide failover capability. However, on the other hand, NIC bonding(LA) can provide both load balancing and failover capabilities.
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 27, 2012, at 7:26 PM, "Hameed, Amir" <Amir.Hameed_at_xerox.com> wrote:
> I would like to understand which one is a better option for a RAC
> interconnect: (a) NIC bonding (b) IPMP based failover. The OS is
> 10, the Grid version is 184.108.40.206 and the RDBMS version is 220.127.116.11
> cannot be used because of the RDBMS version). I am assuming that
> will provide more bandwidth than the IPMP based failover.
> Any feedback will be appreciated.