Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 16:55:07 -0400 From: Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com> To: Joe Moog <joemoog@ebureau.com> Cc: freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Intel 4-port ethernet adaptor link aggregation issue Message-ID: <CAFMmRNwAuwaGLSQ4P-y=Vzh63jpGXoDRCOXbxeWPoVb3ucy0kQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <B966242F-A52D-43F7-A001-99942D53339E@ebureau.com> References: <B966242F-A52D-43F7-A001-99942D53339E@ebureau.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Joe Moog <joemoog@ebureau.com> wrote: > We have an iXsystems 1U server (E5) with an Intel 4-port ethernet NIC > installed, model I350-T4 (manufactured May of 2013). We're trying to bind > the 4 ports on this NIC together into a single lagg port, connected LACP to > a distribution switch (Cisco 4900-series). We are able to successfully bind > the 2 on-board ethernet ports to a single lagg, however the NIC is not so > cooperative. At first we thought we had a bad NIC, but a replacement has > not fixed the issue. We are thinking there may be a driver limitation with > these Intel ethernet NICs when attempting to bind more than 2 ports to a > lagg. > > FreeBSD version: > FreeBSD 9.1-PRERELEASE #0 r244125: Wed Dec 12 11:47:47 CST 2012 > > rc.conf: > # LINK AGGREGATION > ifconfig_igb2="UP" > ifconfig_igb3="UP" > ifconfig_igb4="UP" > ifconfig_igb5="UP" > cloned_interfaces="lagg0" > ifconfig_lagg0="laggproto lacp laggport igb2 laggport igb3 laggport igb4 > laggport igb5" > ifconfig_lagg0="inet 192.168.1.14 netmask 255.255.255.0" > > We've confirmed that the lagg module is loaded (clearly, as the pair of > on-board ethernet ports can be bound successfully). Binding various > combinations of ports on the NIC yields odd results, as sometimes the first > one in the list does not negotiate properly, sometimes the last one in the > list fails negotiation. Adding interfaces to lagg individually versus all > at the same time does not seem to make any difference. At one point we even > tried to assign unique and separate IP addresses to the ethernet ports > individually, and only a couple of the ports would actually come active and > respond to any sort of network activity. Due to this issue with the number > of "usable" ports even beyond the link aggregation failure, this is sort of > what leads us to believe there may be an issue with the drivers for this > card. > > We've searched the 'net/lists fairly extensively, and have seen very few > instances where people have tried to bind more than 2 ports to a lagg with > FreeBSD. Again, 2 ports is no problem, so long as we use the on-board > ports; it's the introduction of the Intel NIC and 2 more ports that has us > stuck. > > Has anybody had any success with such a setup? > > Joe > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > Have you tried using only two ports, but both from the NIC? My suspicion would be that the problem is in the lagg's handling of more than 2 ports rather than the driver, especially given that it is the igb driver in all cases.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFMmRNwAuwaGLSQ4P-y=Vzh63jpGXoDRCOXbxeWPoVb3ucy0kQ>