Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:46:02 +0100 From: Juan Rodriguez Hervella <jrh@it.uc3m.es> To: Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Hussain Ali <hali@ttsg.com> Subject: Re: grouping 2 or more interfaces as 1 Message-ID: <200312121346.03744.jrh@it.uc3m.es> In-Reply-To: <3FD8EC5D.3060506@tenebras.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0312111402260.86730-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <3FD8EC5D.3060506@tenebras.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 11 December 2003 23:14, Michael Sierchio wrote: > Julian Elischer wrote: > >>>more likely he wants something like ng_fec or ng_one2many > >> > >>Unless performance is the reason for bonding the ether channels... > >> > >>Can't we steal the Linux code? ;-) > > > > is the netgraph version particularly slow? > > Not slower than a single ether channel, no ;-) Considerably > slower than link layer bonding. The netgraph version provides > a really useful functionality, and I suppose that 2GB and 10GB > fiber interfaces will do away with any pressure to give us > bonding in the kernel. > Hello, I've never had heard talking about ng_fec, so I've been looking at the pointers of the previous mails and I find it very interesting, but there are some things I don't understand well. For example, if we aggregate 4 ethernet cards into one virtual interface (fec), do this mean that the throughput is 4 times the capacity of one ethernet card ?. Also, if the pyshical interfaces are connected to different LANs, how can we think about the virtual iface ? is it as if we were joining the 4 LANs to make one common link ? is this right ? -- ****** JFRH ****** A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read. -- Mark Twain
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200312121346.03744.jrh>