From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 2 17:58:07 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 6E18C16A4CF for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 17:58:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from electra.nolink.net (electra.nolink.net [195.139.204.207]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FD5243D5D for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 17:58:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lerik@nolink.net) Received: (qmail 51057 invoked by uid 1000); 2 Mar 2005 17:58:02 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Mar 2005 17:58:02 -0000 Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 18:58:02 +0100 (CET) From: Lars Erik Gullerud To: Lister In-Reply-To: <4222C64D.4050007@primetime.com> Message-ID: <20050302174915.V38850@electra.nolink.net> References: <4222C64D.4050007@primetime.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 13:21:45 +0000 cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org 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: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:58:07 -0000 On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, Lister wrote: > > I have setup ng_fec on a machine with a quad ethernet NIC : [snip] > I have all 4 ports connected to the catalyst. From what I have read on > fast etherchannel in the cisco docs, it is supposed to detect the > etherchannel, > e.g. no commands at the switch. Lights blink on and off, change color > (orange -> green) and it seems to work ... but only on one interface in the > bundle. No faster than 80Mb. I have a 1000Mb intel card in the 2nd > test machine that does run much faster than 100. > So, is there something I have done wrong, or what? What should I expect > to get from 4 x 100 Mb ports? Not really related to FreeBSD's ng_fec at all I think, this is a common FEC issue. If you are testing this between two hosts as you indicate above, then you are getting exactly the speed you should be getting. The low-end Cisco switches offers two varieties of "load-balancing" over the FEC members, source or destination-based hash (both operate on MAC-address level). So if all your test traffic goes between a set of two mac-addresses, traffic in either direction will only flow over one member of the FEC. The higher-end devices like the 6500 series can also look at layer 3 and layer 4 flow-information to distribute the load, but basically a FEC is mostly useful in scenarios where you have a large number of hosts communicating. /leg