Hi tech@.
Two machines (A and B) running recent 5.4-stable plugged into same switch.
A has:
em0 at pci4 dev 0 function 0 "Intel 82573E" rev 0x03: msi, address
00:30:48:66:a0:ec
em1 at pci5 dev 0 function 0 "Intel 82573L" rev 0x00: msi, address
00:30:48:66:a0:ed
B has:
bnx0 at pci2 dev 0 functi
"master" on em0/em1/bnx0 is nothing to do with trunk, it is about the gigabit
ethernet clocking source.
lacp hashing policy is the same as for loadbalance, see the manpage and confirm
in trunk_hashmbuf().
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> "master" on em0/em1/bnx0 is nothing to do with trunk, it is about the gigabit
> ethernet clocking source.
ok, but it is obvious: documentation is unclear (silent) about that.
>
> lacp hashing policy is the same as for loadbalance, see
I'm not sure if I am misunderstanding your direction of "inbound", but that
would be an effect of what the switch does, would it not?
If the switch isn't configured for LACP correctly, then it would send the
traffic to one of them, only.
2013/11/11 Alexey Suslikov
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Janne Johansson wrote:
> I'm not sure if I am misunderstanding your direction of "inbound", but that
> would be an effect of what the switch does, would it not?
> If the switch isn't configured for LACP correctly, then it would send the
> traffic to one of them, o
On 2013/11/11 12:15, Alexey Suslikov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Stuart Henderson
> wrote:
> > "master" on em0/em1/bnx0 is nothing to do with trunk, it is about the
> > gigabit ethernet clocking source.
>
> ok, but it is obvious: documentation is unclear (silent) about that.
Why
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2013/11/11 12:15, Alexey Suslikov wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Stuart Henderson
>> wrote:
>> > "master" on em0/em1/bnx0 is nothing to do with trunk, it is about the
>> > gigabit ethernet clocking source.
>>
>> ok, but
> On 2013/11/11 12:15, Alexey Suslikov wrote:
> > I see different inbound packet distribution on trunk on-top of em(4)s
> > and on trunk on top of bnx(4)s -
> > that's the real problem.
>
On 2013/11/11 10:43, I wrote:
> The trunk driver can't influence inbound packet distribution, that is
> down t
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>> On 2013/11/11 12:15, Alexey Suslikov wrote:
>> > I see different inbound packet distribution on trunk on-top of em(4)s
>> > and on trunk on top of bnx(4)s -
>> > that's the real problem.
>>
> On 2013/11/11 10:43, I wrote:
>> The trunk dri
