Our (Intel) latest drivers are on our http://e1000.sf.net site including he igb driver. When you ask about the driver below I assume you are talking about bonding right?
Please let us know how this goes. I haven't found our testing lead to ask about this since our last mail but I track him down and ask. Cheers, John ----------------------------------------------------------- "...that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.", B. Obama, 2009 >-----Original Message----- >From: Support Team [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 1:25 PM >To: 'Jay Vosburgh' >Cc: Ronciak, John; [email protected] >Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] Bug report E1000 driver bonding in >802.3ad mode can not go beyond 1GB/s throughput > >Hi Jay, > >Thanks for writing back regarding this matter. We use latest >2.4 kernel >from kernel.org. For E1000 driver, >we download it from Intel web site. If you have newer driver >somewhere we >can download. We will download that >and give it a try. > >Basically in our setup, both 82546 NIC based setup and 82573 >based setup >using the same os and same kernel, >bonding configuration. the only difference in software is the >driver: E1000E >vs. E1000. E1000E driver >working well, E1000 does not. We also plan to test igb driver >bonding for >the newest Intel NIC chip. > >Thanks for your help! >Wayne > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jay Vosburgh [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:44 PM >To: [email protected] >Cc: 'Ronciak, John'; [email protected] >Subject: [work] Re: [E1000-devel] Bug report E1000 driver >bonding in 802.3ad >mode can not go beyond 1GB/s throughput > >Support Team <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Yes, same VLAN setup in the software does not work for 82546 >chip. The >>setup in software are identical, >>other than 82546 load E1000 driver and 82573 load E1000E >driver, nothing >>else changed in software or >>test environment. If we can see 82546/MT adapter can get >2GB/s in bond >>mode, we will be happy. > > Some bonding things to check: > >ip route show > > Make sure no interfaces (the slaves) have routes that supercede >the route for the bond itself. > >cat /proc/net/bonding/bond0 [or whatever bond device you have] > > Make sure the options you think you have match what bonding is >seeing (particularly the xmit_hash_policy if your throughput test is >many connections but not many discrete peers). > > Also in the proc file, make sure the 802.3ad is aggregating >properly; are all of the slaves in the active aggregator? > > Lastly, what distro (cat /etc/issue) and kernel version are you >running (uname -a)? > > I fixed a bug in 802.3ad related to aggregator assignments a >couple of weeks ago. If you've got a sufficiently recent kernel (the >bug was introduced late last year), you might be seeing that (if the >slaves don't aggregate properly). I observed the bug messing >up 802.3ad >aggregations with my e1000 devices, so it might be that. > > -J > >--- > -Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, [email protected] > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel
