Right,
And not sure if it would help Pieter's problem anyway:
# ifconfig
bond0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 02:00:00:00:00:41
inet addr:10.93.27.250 Bcast:10.93.27.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
inet6 addr: fe80::ff:fe00:41/64 Scope:Link
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MASTER MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:412326 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:513783 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:115082811 (109.7 Mb) TX bytes:127188062 (121.2 Mb)
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 02:00:00:00:00:41
UP BROADCAST RUNNING SLAVE MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:394205 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:513781 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:114199553 (108.9 Mb) TX bytes:127187894 (121.2 Mb)
eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 02:00:00:00:00:41
UP BROADCAST RUNNING SLAVE MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:18121 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:2 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:883258 (862.5 Kb) TX bytes:168 (168.0 b)
lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
RX packets:198 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:198 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:11715 (11.4 Kb) TX bytes:11715 (11.4 Kb)
Given the counts, it seems to greatly favor one over the other (this one
is sles 10 sp2)
Marcy
"This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If
you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the
addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on
this message or any information herein. If you have received this
message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation."
-----Original Message-----
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:linux-...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of
Mark Post
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 7:53 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] bonding multiple qeth vnics to vswitch?
>>> On 1/22/2009 at 6:51 PM, Alan Altmark <alan_altm...@us.ibm.com>
wrote:
-snip-
> While you can have multiple vNICs on an aggregating VSWITCH, there's
> nothing that will spray/deal queued frames across the vNICs since they
> each have a unique MAC address.
When the bonded NIC starts up, both of the slave's MAC addresses are set
to be the same. So, they're not unique.
Mark Post
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or
visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
