Networking configuration recommendations

When setting up a failover cluster in 2008, and using teamed NICs, do you
recommend adding a 2nd IP to the team and creating a "Private" network over
the same teamed interface?

I know it's technically possible and that since everything would be
redundant (switch cores, NICs, etc) and there's just the one interface, it's
somewhat redundant, I'm just curious to know if it's "recommended" to
configure it that way, or just let everything communicate over the "public"
network.

Thanks,

Peter

Now that wouldn't really be very highly-available, would it? This would not
be in the best spirit of HA and Failover Clustering. I'd recommend simply
using a separate network interface card to provide this functionality.

--
Ryan Sokolowski
MVP - Clustering
MCT, MCITP x3, MCTS x8, MCSE x2, CCNA, CCDA, BCFP


"Peter Brown" <> wrote in message
news:95E0BE6A-64F0-42CF-B299-...
> When setting up a failover cluster in 2008, and using teamed NICs, do you
> recommend adding a 2nd IP to the team and creating a "Private" network
> over
> the same teamed interface?
>
> I know it's technically possible and that since everything would be
> redundant (switch cores, NICs, etc) and there's just the one interface,
> it's
> somewhat redundant, I'm just curious to know if it's "recommended" to
> configure it that way, or just let everything communicate over the
> "public"
> network.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter

That's a very good point, but the issue I run into is that the physical nodes
are actually blades only have 2 NICs assigned to them; hence the question.

I know the documentation mentions that it's "OK" to use a teamed NIC as your
private and public connections, but just make sure everything is redundant,
and in this case it is.

Thanks...

"Ryan Sokolowski [MVP]" wrote:

> Now that wouldn't really be very highly-available, would it? This would not
> be in the best spirit of HA and Failover Clustering. I'd recommend simply
> using a separate network interface card to provide this functionality.
>
> --
> Ryan Sokolowski
> MVP - Clustering
> MCT, MCITP x3, MCTS x8, MCSE x2, CCNA, CCDA, BCFP
>
>
> "Peter Brown" <> wrote in message
> news:95E0BE6A-64F0-42CF-B299-...
> > When setting up a failover cluster in 2008, and using teamed NICs, do you
> > recommend adding a 2nd IP to the team and creating a "Private" network
> > over
> > the same teamed interface?
> >
> > I know it's technically possible and that since everything would be
> > redundant (switch cores, NICs, etc) and there's just the one interface,
> > it's
> > somewhat redundant, I'm just curious to know if it's "recommended" to
> > configure it that way, or just let everything communicate over the
> > "public"
> > network.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Peter
>

I this case I would use VLAN / 802.1q tagging, most NIC drivers and Network
Switches will support this.

rgds,
Edwin.


"Peter Brown" <> wrote in message
news:311913B9-F97B-445F-98BD-...
> That's a very good point, but the issue I run into is that the physical
nodes
> are actually blades only have 2 NICs assigned to them; hence the question.
>
> I know the documentation mentions that it's "OK" to use a teamed NIC as
your
> private and public connections, but just make sure everything is
redundant,
> and in this case it is.
>
> Thanks...
>
> "Ryan Sokolowski [MVP]" wrote:
>
> > Now that wouldn't really be very highly-available, would it? This would
not
> > be in the best spirit of HA and Failover Clustering. I'd recommend
simply
> > using a separate network interface card to provide this functionality.
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Sokolowski
> > MVP - Clustering
> > MCT, MCITP x3, MCTS x8, MCSE x2, CCNA, CCDA, BCFP
> >
> >
> > "Peter Brown" <> wrote in message
> > news:95E0BE6A-64F0-42CF-B299-...
> > > When setting up a failover cluster in 2008, and using teamed NICs, do
you
> > > recommend adding a 2nd IP to the team and creating a "Private" network
> > > over
> > > the same teamed interface?
> > >
> > > I know it's technically possible and that since everything would be
> > > redundant (switch cores, NICs, etc) and there's just the one
interface,
> > > it's
> > > somewhat redundant, I'm just curious to know if it's "recommended" to
> > > configure it that way, or just let everything communicate over the
> > > "public"
> > > network.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Peter
> >

"Peter Brown" <> wrote in message
news:311913B9-F97B-445F-98BD-...
> That's a very good point, but the issue I run into is that the physical
> nodes
> are actually blades only have 2 NICs assigned to them; hence the question.
>
> I know the documentation mentions that it's "OK" to use a teamed NIC as
> your
> private and public connections, but just make sure everything is
> redundant,
> and in this case it is.

It is not supported to use a teamed NIC for your private network.

--
Russ Kaufmann,
MVP, MCSE: Messaging and Security, MCT, MCITP, MCTS and other stuff

ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp

VLAN Tagging is definitely a good thing here, but still as pointed out
teaming is not supported for private networks, at least in Windows Server
2003 that is, I do think it is supported in Windows Server 2008 though.

But, I have a few other thoughs: I would never run a two node cluster on two
blade servers being in the same blade shelf. You simply have too many
possible points of failure that will affect both nodes. So, if you plan to
run a cluster on blades, at least ensure that you have the servers
distributed across multiple blade shelves. Needless to say, the
infrastructure from these shelves to the backbone AND the backbone network
should also be highly available, after all you're after a highly available
system right?

So, this configuration is not officially supported by Microsoft, correct?

"Russ Kaufmann" wrote:

> "Peter Brown" <> wrote in message
> news:311913B9-F97B-445F-98BD-...
> > That's a very good point, but the issue I run into is that the physical
> > nodes
> > are actually blades only have 2 NICs assigned to them; hence the question.
> >
> > I know the documentation mentions that it's "OK" to use a teamed NIC as
> > your
> > private and public connections, but just make sure everything is
> > redundant,
> > and in this case it is.
>
> It is not supported to use a teamed NIC for your private network.
>
> --
> Russ Kaufmann,
> MVP, MCSE: Messaging and Security, MCT, MCITP, MCTS and other stuff
>
> ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
> Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
> Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
>

Thanks for the great ideas and advice! It's much appreciated and that's
something I've considered. We have multiple enclosures and I will move at
least one node to a different enclosure to help increase the high
availability.

Thanks,

Peter

"Ole Kristian Bangås" wrote:

> VLAN Tagging is definitely a good thing here, but still as pointed out
> teaming is not supported for private networks, at least in Windows Server
> 2003 that is, I do think it is supported in Windows Server 2008 though.
>
> But, I have a few other thoughs: I would never run a two node cluster on two
> blade servers being in the same blade shelf. You simply have too many
> possible points of failure that will affect both nodes. So, if you plan to
> run a cluster on blades, at least ensure that you have the servers
> distributed across multiple blade shelves. Needless to say, the
> infrastructure from these shelves to the backbone AND the backbone network
> should also be highly available, after all you're after a highly available
> system right?
>

"Peter Brown" <> wrote in message
news9955657-2B34-4F10-9C2B-...
> So, this configuration is not officially supported by Microsoft, correct?

not as I understand your config.


--
Russ Kaufmann,
MVP, MCSE: Messaging and Security, MCT, MCITP, MCTS and other stuff

ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp