Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:06:41 -0500 From: Tim Daneliuk <tundra@tundraware.com> To: Denny Schierz <linuxmail@4lin.net> Cc: 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: <4DA34331.7000202@tundraware.com> In-Reply-To: <D222126D-D730-46EE-A5A0-996C9AA08560@4lin.net> References: <1302516039.3223.222.camel@pcdenny> <BANLkTinE5rSA26M5edj=EpuJHeuTeuHdwg@mail.gmail.com> <D222126D-D730-46EE-A5A0-996C9AA08560@4lin.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4/11/2011 12:55 PM, Denny Schierz said this: > > 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. > >> 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 :-) > > cu denny_______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > Are you certain you are not somehow running active-passive instead of active-active ... just a thought... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tim Daneliuk tundra@tundraware.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DA34331.7000202>