From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Oct 16 21:30:41 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mail.xmission.com (mail.xmission.com [198.60.22.22]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 598381505F for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 21:30:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from [204.68.178.39] (helo=softweyr.com) by mail.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11chxm-0001mU-00; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 22:30:30 -0600 Message-ID: <3809416D.2C6C741D@softweyr.com> Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 21:24:29 -0600 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jimbo Bahooli Cc: Mike Smith , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Balancing Outgoing traffic over 2 nics, and niclimitations. References: <199910161735.KAA06493@dingo.cdrom.com> <199910161325230440.0DE208AE@207.109.8.249> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Jimbo Bahooli wrote: > > Of course its a switched network with full duplex operation. But now > that the general answer is that it is not a limitation of the nic card > I am going to look elsewhere. I was not to sure if it was actually a > limit myself, its just that I observed it on two different machines. > They however were not huge powerhouses, one was a p2-450, and one was a > dual p2 333. Both running real new versions of 3.3-stable. No possibility of moving to a Gigabit adapter and sticking a Gigabit blade in your switch? Another possibility, depending on your switch vendor, may be to query them about some sort of channel aggregation. They might even be willing to open their source code -- who knows? Stranger things have happened. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message