From owner-freebsd-isp Sun Aug 20 9:17:18 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from mail.polytechnic.edu.na (mail.polytechnic.edu.na [196.31.225.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E01837B423 for ; Sun, 20 Aug 2000 09:17:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns1.horizon.na ([196.31.225.199] helo=polytechnic.edu.na) by mail.polytechnic.edu.na with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #2) id 13Qabz-0000EA-00; Sun, 20 Aug 2000 17:18:27 -0200 Message-ID: <39A0048A.B2310DE4@polytechnic.edu.na> Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 17:17:14 +0100 From: Tim Priebe Reply-To: tim@iafrica.com.na X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.4-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dennis Cc: Stanley Hopcroft , freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Throughput & Availability: Does anyone have experiencewith Trunking products (eg EtherChannel) ... ? References: <200008191506.LAA10918@etinc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dennis wrote: > > > eg 4 100 TX NICs > > => 200 Mbps => 400 Mbps > > > >Auto Failover Yes Yes > > We've considered doing this by balancing ethernets within bridge groups > (using our bridging code), but we have doubts about the marketability. > "Marketability" implies 1) the number of people who need it and 2) the > number of people willing to pay for a commercial product. > > Its fairly easy for us to do, but the question we ask is "why not just use > gigabit ethernet" if the application is PTP. If you are talking that sort of load, then gigabit ethernet makes a lot of sense for interupt load as well. A 64 Bit PCI card will reduce the time to transfer the data over the bus, and I understand that multiple packets can be handled per interupt on the Alteon cards. Tim. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message