Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:55:55 +0200 From: Denny Schierz <linuxmail@4lin.net> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re=3A_Network_throughput=3A_Never_get_more_than_1?= =?iso-8859-1?q?12MB/s_=FCber_two_NICs?= Message-ID: <D222126D-D730-46EE-A5A0-996C9AA08560@4lin.net> In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinE5rSA26M5edj=EpuJHeuTeuHdwg@mail.gmail.com> References: <1302516039.3223.222.camel@pcdenny> <BANLkTinE5rSA26M5edj=EpuJHeuTeuHdwg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 11.04.2011 um 16:20 schrieb Michael Loftis: > Most switches load balance based on MAC addresses, not IP, unless it > is routing the traffic as a Layer 3 switch then you can enable IP > based load balancing in some of those. Also you might simply be that was the reason, why we disabled the loadbalancer and tested with = plain NICs.=20 > reaching the limits of your firewall box too you haven't mentioned any > of it's specs, nor do you seem to have run top while running the iperf > tests. The clients (who running iperf -c <ip>) had a load near zero, they are = powerful machines (Sun sparcs) with 8 cores and more. The machine, with = 4 Cores (Xeon) who is running "iperf -s", had a load round about ~0.8. No firewall etc. between the hosts, just plain network :-)=20 cu denny=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D222126D-D730-46EE-A5A0-996C9AA08560>