Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 16:27:36 -0500 From: Joe Moog <joemoog@ebureau.com> To: Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Intel 4-port ethernet adaptor link aggregation issue Message-ID: <D080FEC3-1935-4510-8CD1-E39B681B2785@ebureau.com> In-Reply-To: <CAFMmRNwAuwaGLSQ4P-y=Vzh63jpGXoDRCOXbxeWPoVb3ucy0kQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <B966242F-A52D-43F7-A001-99942D53339E@ebureau.com> <CAFMmRNwAuwaGLSQ4P-y=Vzh63jpGXoDRCOXbxeWPoVb3ucy0kQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 1, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com> wrote: > Have you tried using only two ports, but both from the NIC? My = suspicion would be that the problem is in the lagg's handling of more = than 2 ports rather than the driver, especially given that it is the igb = driver in all cases. Ryan: We have done this successfully with two ports on the NIC, on another = hardware-identical host. That said, it is entirely possible that this is = a shortcoming of lagg.=20 Can you think of any sort of workaround? Our desired implementation = really requires the inclusion of all 4 ports in the lagg. Failing this = we're looking at the likelihood of 10G ethernet, but with that comes = significant overhead, both cost and administration (before anybody tries = to force the cost debate, remember that there are 10G router modules and = 10G-capable distribution switches involved, never mind the cabling and = SFPs -- it's not just a $600 10G card for the host). I'd like to defer = that requirement as long as possible. 4 aggregated gig ports would serve = us perfectly well for the near-term. Thanks Joe=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D080FEC3-1935-4510-8CD1-E39B681B2785>