Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 15:36:04 -0700 From: Sean Bruno <sean_bruno@yahoo.com> To: Joe Moog <joemoog@ebureau.com> Cc: freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Intel 4-port ethernet adaptor link aggregation issue Message-ID: <1375396564.1481.37.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <2A0C085A-1AAF-42D7-867B-6CDD1143B4AC@ebureau.com> References: <B966242F-A52D-43F7-A001-99942D53339E@ebureau.com> <CAFMmRNwAuwaGLSQ4P-y=Vzh63jpGXoDRCOXbxeWPoVb3ucy0kQ@mail.gmail.com> <D080FEC3-1935-4510-8CD1-E39B681B2785@ebureau.com> <2A0C085A-1AAF-42D7-867B-6CDD1143B4AC@ebureau.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Thu, 2013-08-01 at 17:14 -0500, Joe Moog wrote: > On Aug 1, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Joe Moog <joemoog@ebureau.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > 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 > > UPDATE: After additional testing, I'm beginning to suspect the igb driver. With our setup, ifconfig identifies all the ethernet ports as igb(0-5). I configured igb0 with a single static IP address (say, 192.168.1.10), and was able to connect to the host administratively. While connected, I enabled another port as a second standalone port, again with a unique address (say, 192.168.1.20), and was able to access the host via that interface as well. The problem arises when we attempt to similarly add a third interface to the mix -- and it doesn't seem to matter what interface(s) we use, or in what order we activate them. Always on the third interface, that third interface fails to respond despite showing "active" both in ifconfig and on the switch. > > If there is anything else I could try that would be useful to help identify where the issue may reside, please let me know. > > Thanks > > Joe Your test seems to indicate that the *first* port on the quad-port card is causing you issues as the on-board interfaces igb0/1 are working fine. Can you bring up *any* ports on the quad-port card? Are you sure that device enumeration is correct in the host o/s and that port 1 on the aud-port card is really igb2, port 2 is igb3, etc ? Sean [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAABAgAGBQJR+uLUAAoJEBkJRdwI6BaHwVQIAIKIYlO2JZrSVfbidu4vXxIh TyjC8vLzLh28ExLnxqmoADi+dE4TNQULAHkQ1nWjrkMS8SmiafQLXiEk5UoBWE21 yzGDcr33HSZcAve1Mp+c7N3bhtzKFYcWeKQDzJKnnT4rsYIffxykanrn0QwrHk12 6MXZHXElYLA9OywDV9R04o63k7gn/wElRmEuzrBANoYmgV1TluOdG1U5rNnGC7dH kB0iOWnxPDybA0v8/76N+4wChjUY5hEaGOxEg0L3O+xfrbFYg69ZC+t8lt92N3uv gKls5iCYOA7yJqJw625kWt619wexc+H5156Qpp056+CkYMdwWzBht95GizAVpKM= =eXTi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1375396564.1481.37.camel>