From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 22 16:35:48 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 60D5D16A4CE for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 16:35:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mailhost.stack.nl (vaak.stack.nl [131.155.140.140]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 015BA43D1F for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 16:35:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dean@dragon.stack.nl) Received: from dragon.stack.nl (dragon.stack.nl [IPv6:2001:610:1108:5011:207:e9ff:fe09:230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailhost.stack.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 633171F44E for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 18:35:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: by dragon.stack.nl (Postfix, from userid 1600) id 2F6F65F157; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 18:35:47 +0200 (CEST) Resent-From: dean@dragon.stack.nl Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 18:35:47 +0200 Resent-Message-ID: <20050422163547.GC7252@dragon.stack.nl> Resent-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 18:33:40 +0200 From: Dean Strik To: Sean Message-ID: <20050422163340.GB7252@dragon.stack.nl> References: <136272710504220832793dfc3d@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <136272710504220832793dfc3d@mail.gmail.com> X-Editor: VIM Rulez! http://www.vim.org/ X-MUD: Outerspace - telnet://mud.stack.nl:3333 X-Really: Yes User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Channel bonding. 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: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 16:35:48 -0000 Sean wrote: > I've been experimenting with the idea of doing channel bonding as a > means of improving the performance of some heavily used file servers. > Currently I am using a single Intel 1000MT interface on each file > server and it has rather lack luster performance. > > I've set two ports of my switch to 'shared' (an Extreme > BlackDiamond 6800) and am using an Intel 1000MT Dual Port for > the bonding interfaces. > > The performance increase with I see is marginally better than > just the one interface (70MB/s [bonded] vs 60MB/s [single]) which > is slightly disappointing. I am using ifstat and iostat (for disk > throughput, 30MB/s on a 3ware 7500-12 yet again disappointing) to > monitor and a variant of tcpblast to generate traffic. I'm using > 4 other machines (on the same blade on the switch) to generate the > traffice to the bonded interface all are similar hardware with > varrying versions of FreeBSD. In order to get the numbers as high > as I have I've enabled polling (some stability issues being > used under SMP). If I understand you correctly, you are not doing any load sharing from the FreeBSD box to the BD6800, right? Also, it's likely the BD6800 uses the lsb of the source-mac xor dest-mac. If you have four clients only, a marginal increase in performance could well be because the src^dst often returns the same value (e.g. with 3 out of 4 clients having an even MAC, and 1 out of 4 an odd MAC). Try making this 50/50 by changing a MAC address of the client using 'ifconfig ether'. -- Dean C. Strik Eindhoven University of Technology dean@stack.nl | dean@ipnet6.org | http://www.ipnet6.org/ "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli