From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Feb  4 12:19:26 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 565EF106566B
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Fri,  4 Feb 2011 12:19:26 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from petefrench@ingresso.co.uk)
Received: from constantine.ticketswitch.com (constantine.ingresso.co.uk
	[IPv6:2002:57e0:1d4e:1::3])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D69E8FC0C
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Fri,  4 Feb 2011 12:19:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from dilbert.london-internal.ingresso.co.uk ([10.64.50.6]
	helo=dilbert.ticketswitch.com)
	by constantine.ticketswitch.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.73 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <petefrench@ingresso.co.uk>)
	id 1PlKdH-000KKu-7B; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 12:19:23 +0000
Received: from petefrench by dilbert.ticketswitch.com with local (Exim 4.72
	(FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <petefrench@ingresso.co.uk>)
	id 1PlKdH-0000hK-6J; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 12:19:23 +0000
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 12:19:23 +0000
Message-Id: <E1PlKdH-0000hK-6J@dilbert.ticketswitch.com>
To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, ml@my.gd
In-Reply-To: <4D4BED80.5060806@my.gd>
From: Pete French <petefrench@ingresso.co.uk>
Cc: 
Subject: Re: link aggregation - bundling 2 lagg interfaces together
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 12:19:26 -0000

If you want failover using lagg then your best bet is to get lagg between
two ports on different switches. If you have a pair of switches which
will present as a single device then you can use LACP to do this, else
use simple failover. I do this for all our servers and it works very
nicely.

In your setup I am not sure why you are originally lagging the pairs of
interfaces to the same switch. Is that to try and increase capacity ?
If so then I have never found it to work - all the traffic goes over
one interface for me.

-pete.