Part of the performance loss is that you cannot get the full 4 Gbit of bandwidth between 2 hosts. Usually you are limited to the throughput of a single link between 2 hosts. And if you are using a round-robin method of bonding, then you run into performance losses due to TCP packets coming in out of order.
- Mike -----Original Message----- From: gluster-users-boun...@gluster.org [mailto:gluster-users-boun...@gluster.org] On Behalf Of Mickey Mazarick Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 4:19 PM To: Nathan Stratton Cc: gluster-users@gluster.org Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Interesting experiment Just a note we initially tried to set up our storage network with bonded 4 port gig E connections per client and storage node and it was still ~1/3 the speed of infiniband. There also appears to be more overhead in unwrapping data from packets even with jumbo frames set. We did see about a 50% increase in throughput with 2 bonded gig ports, but not double the speed that you would expect. Make sure you use a trunking mechanism and not an active/passive configuration. -Mic Nathan Stratton wrote: > On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Hiren Joshi wrote: > >> Is it worth bonding? This look like I'm maxing out the network >> connection. > > Yes, but you should also check out Infiniband. > > http://www.robotics.net/2009/07/30/infiniband/ > > >> <> > Nathan Stratton CTO, BlinkMind, Inc. > nathan at robotics.net nathan at blinkmind.com > http://www.robotics.net http://www.blinkmind.com > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users@gluster.org > http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
