-----Original Message----- From: owner-freebsd-...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Jack Vogel Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 3:49 PM To: Joe Moog Cc: freebsd-net; Ryan Stone Subject: Re: Intel 4-port ethernet adaptor link aggregation issue
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Joe Moog <joem...@ebureau.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Joe Moog <joem...@ebureau.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 1, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Ryan Stone <ryst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Have you tried using only two ports, but both from the NIC? My > suspicion would be that the problem is in the lagg's handling of more than > 2 ports rather than the driver, especially given that it is the igb driver > in all cases. > > > > Ryan: > > > > We have done this successfully with two ports on the NIC, on another > hardware-identical host. That said, it is entirely possible that this is a > shortcoming of lagg. > > > > Can you think of any sort of workaround? Our desired implementation > really requires the inclusion of all 4 ports in the lagg. Failing this > we're looking at the likelihood of 10G ethernet, but with that comes > significant overhead, both cost and administration (before anybody tries to > force the cost debate, remember that there are 10G router modules and > 10G-capable distribution switches involved, never mind the cabling and SFPs > -- it's not just a $600 10G card for the host). I'd like to defer that > requirement as long as possible. 4 aggregated gig ports would serve us > perfectly well for the near-term. > > > > Thanks > > > > Joe > > UPDATE: After additional testing, I'm beginning to suspect the igb driver. > With our setup, ifconfig identifies all the ethernet ports as igb(0-5). I > configured igb0 with a single static IP address (say, 192.168.1.10), and > was able to connect to the host administratively. While connected, I > enabled another port as a second standalone port, again with a unique > address (say, 192.168.1.20), and was able to access the host via that > interface as well. The problem arises when we attempt to similarly add a > third interface to the mix -- and it doesn't seem to matter what > interface(s) we use, or in what order we activate them. Always on the third > interface, that third interface fails to respond despite showing "active" > both in ifconfig and on the switch. > > If there is anything else I could try that would be useful to help > identify where the issue may reside, please let me know. > > >Well, you're using a PRERELEASE of 9.1, leads me to wonder how old the igb >driver is also. First step would be to try all this >on more recent bits... I'd go for HEAD or at least 9.2 BETA as a start. We >don't use or test lagg within Intel, but we've tested the >quad port adapter and not seen an issue with a third port not working. > >Good luck, > >Jack I can ping to 4 different subnets using all 4 ports simultaneously with an I350-T4 using 9.1-RELEASE and igb-2.3.9 (in-kernel driver) connected to a Cisco 4948, so the issue is definitely not with the igb driver. Jeff _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
