From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 3 02:47:01 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD8D16A4CE for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 02:47:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.utcorp.net (mail.utcorp.net [146.145.135.97]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C053643D41 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 02:47:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lister@primetime.com) Received: from [10.200.1.90] (helo=[10.200.1.90]) by mail.utcorp.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1D6gdF-000HFw-GT; Wed, 02 Mar 2005 22:04:09 -0500 Message-ID: <4226A42B.2010601@primetime.com> Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:44:11 -0800 From: Lister User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050116) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Michael G. Jung" , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org References: <9D7F0DF3FB16D41184010050DA90E00001C874BB@neo.confluentasp.local> In-Reply-To: <9D7F0DF3FB16D41184010050DA90E00001C874BB@neo.confluentasp.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-yoursite-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-yoursite-MailScanner: Found to be clean Subject: Re: ng_fec and cisco 2931 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 02:47:01 -0000 Michael G. Jung wrote: >Sorry, not subscribed but here go's.... > >To quote cisco > >http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk213/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094646.shtml > >"EtherChannel load balancing can use either MAC addresses or IP addresses. Also, EtherChannel load balancing can use either source or destination, or both source and destination, addresses. The mode that you select applies to all EtherChannels that you have configured on the switch." > >On older switches that I deployed this on, say the 5000 seriers which was based on MAC address only, on a Nx100 channel between two hosts throughput could never exceed "N". So 4x100Mbit links between two hosts would never exceed 100Mbit but multiple connections across the connection would aggregate. > >In other words etherchannel does not load balance per packet across bonded ethernet connections but per connection. Try running tests to multiple hosts from your FreeBSD box and see if you don't aggregate above 100Mbit total.... > > Well, problem #1, as Dave G noted earlier is a crappy quad port NIC, so I dumped that and started testing with 2 singles. >Hope this is helpful. > > It is, thanks. >I'd be very curious to know if you find this is your issue. > > I am going to get my act together, e.g. good cards, document my techniques, graph results. I am also trying one2many, are there other possibilities (than these 2)? >Kind regards, > >--mikej >Michael Jung > >