Frazzle Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 If I have a HyperV host with 6 physical network connections and I want it to host SIMS VM, SAGE VM and at least 2 others. Should I be using one physical network connection for the management and creating 4 virtual switches, 1 for each of the VMs? So that each VM has a dedicated physical network port on the server?
Steve21 Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 I'd team them up, else you'll lose it if that switch/port goes down. We have 1 management, 2 team for ISCSI, 2 team for VM traffic etc Steve 1
tmcd35 Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 My turn to be pedantic :shock: Technically your physical NICs connect to a virtual switch not the individual VM's. The VM's virtual NIC's connect to virtual switches. So you should think of the non management ports on your host NIC as being uplinks from the virtual switch to your physical switch. Thus, best practice would be to bond them unless you have a need for multiple virtual switches? Also, if these bonded ports are not being used for management by the host (and they shouldn't) then they don't need either IPv4 or IPv6 enabled - again best practice would be to disable them. 1
Frazzle Posted June 10, 2015 Author Posted June 10, 2015 I'd team them up, else you'll lose it if that switch/port goes down. We have 1 management, 2 team for ISCSI, 2 team for VM traffic etc Steve We only use local storage for the VMs no SCSI. I was just wondering if all the VMs used the same virtual switch would it cause any issues with speed even if it was teamed?
tmcd35 Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 We have about 10 VM's on each host. Each host as a 2Gb team for the virtual switch. We've never had any network related speed issues. And, as @Steve21 point out, it does provide failover. 1
Frazzle Posted June 10, 2015 Author Posted June 10, 2015 My turn to be pedantic :shock: Technically your physical NICs connect to a virtual switch not the individual VM's. The VM's virtual NIC's connect to virtual switches. So you should think of the non management ports on your host NIC as being uplinks from the virtual switch to your physical switch. Thus, best practice would be to bond them unless you have a need for multiple virtual switches? Also, if these bonded ports are not being used for management by the host (and they shouldn't) then they don't need either IPv4 or IPv6 enabled - again best practice would be to disable them. I just checked and the physical port pointing to the virtual switch doesn't have IPv4 or v6 enabled. So if I team 2 physical nics and allocate these to the virtual switch then that should be fine for all VMs to connect through the one virtual switch?
Steve21 Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 We only use local storage for the VMs no SCSI. I was just wondering if all the VMs used the same virtual switch would it cause any issues with speed even if it was teamed? Guess that depends on the speed of your network etc, but the virtual one is 10Gb isn't it? So even having 6x 1Gb (assumption) shouldn't hit it Steve 1
Frazzle Posted June 10, 2015 Author Posted June 10, 2015 @tmcd35 - don't seem to be able to give thanks to your posts.
SteveM555 Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 We also team them here.. We also have more VMs than the number of network ports on each server. We do reserve one for management though. 1
Frazzle Posted June 10, 2015 Author Posted June 10, 2015 Guess that depends on the speed of your network etc, but the virtual one is 10Gb isn't it? So even having 6x 1Gb (assumption) shouldn't hit it Steve How would I check the speed is 10Gb?
Steve21 Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Inside your VMs it should show it as the "connected" speed, as it's showing the virtual switch. Just checked and yep 10.0Gbps. I mean we run 8 NICs per server and only have 1 vSwitch on each. Steve
tmcd35 Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) I just checked and the physical port pointing to the virtual switch doesn't have IPv4 or v6 enabled. So if I team 2 physical nics and allocate these to the virtual switch then that should be fine for all VMs to connect through the one virtual switch? Yep, fine. Only reasons I can think of for multiple virtual switches would involve possibly VLANs, DMZ's, multiple physical subnets, or wanting inter-VM communication with no access to the physical (test networks). Wherever possible I find it easier to imagine I was setting up real physical machines to a real physical switch. Would I have one switch per physical machine and then connect each of those switches back to the core individually, or would I use one physical switch and then concentrate on the uplink between that switch and the core? Edited June 10, 2015 by tmcd35 1
Frazzle Posted June 10, 2015 Author Posted June 10, 2015 Yep, fine. Only reasons I can think of for multiple virtual switches would involve possibly VLANs, DMZ's, multiple physical subnets, or wanting inter-VM communication with no access to the physical (test networks). Wherever possible I find it easier to imagine I was setting up real physical machines to a real physical switch. Would I have one switch per physical machine and then connect each of those switches back to the core individually, or would I use one physical switch and then concentrate on the uplink between that switch and the core? That makes sense. Thanks.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now