[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael O'Donnell) writes:
> Anybody here ever messed around with the Linux
> network bonding stuff, particularly in conjunction
> with a Cisco Catalyst switch and its EtherChannel
> capabilities? I have the bonding stuff mostly
> sorta kinda working but the behavior is a little
> strange in that the throughput numbers exhibit
> variations that I don't understand.
Does Linux's network bonding play nicely with Cisco's EtherChannel or
does it implement to the IEEE 802.3ad spec?
(I don't know)
> This appears to be a switch issue because if I
> declare (say) 5 pairs of Catalyst ports to be 5
> "channels" and I connect machineA's two NICs to
> portPairA and machineB's NICs to portPairB (with
> nothing else connected to the switch) all will
> be well for a time and I will get the expected
> aggregate throughput numbers in both directions,
> as measured from either host by saying "netperf
> -H otherHost". Then, sometimes, after a while
> netperf on one host will start reporting lower and
> lower numbers until we're at (or even below) the
> numbers obtained for a single un-bonded connection,
> while the other host seems perfectly happy and
> continues to obtain the higher aggregate numbers
> (ie. ~165 Mbits/S versus ~95)
If they've implemented their MIBs correctly (*), you ought to be able
to walk through the ifStackTable and then hop over to the ifTable to
figure out what's going on.
(*) The IEEE MIBs are seriously brain-damaged in this general area,
but you ought to be able to get enough information from the
ifTable.
> Strangely, if I swap the connections (ie.
> machineA's two NICs into portPairB and machineB's
> NICs into portPairA) the "slow" machine will be
> fast and vice versa. Or if I move the "slow"
> machine's connections to a previously idle channel
> like portPairC then both machines will once again
> start reporting the higher numbers.
>
> When I ask the Catalyst to tell me everything about
> the vlans and channels and statistics and every
> other dang thing I can think of I see nothing
> that's different or remarkable for one port or
> channel compared to any other.
Again, looking at the ifTable (after figuring out how things are
hooked up in the ifStackTable) might give you more details as to what
is going on here.
> FYI, I also tried this with an Intel switch (their
> term is "port aggregation") and the numbers are
> rock steady at ~95Mbits/S, showing no variations
> but also no throughput numbers higher than I can
> get with an unbonded NIC.
Last time I checked (I used to work on "port aggregation" a long time
ago...) Intel was implementing the 802.3ad spec.
But, the question remains: does Linux's network bonding play nicely
with 802.3ad? (I still don't know)
Regards,
--kevin
--
Kevin D. Clark / Cetacean Networks / Portsmouth, N.H. (USA)
cetaceannetworks.com!kclark (GnuPG ID: B280F24E)
alumni.unh.edu!kdc
_______________________________________________
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
