In which case, an appropriate test would be to have several servers push
data to one the server while it's interface is un-bonded. We'd anticipate
that the results would be under 1000Mbps. Then do the same with the bonded
interface and the results would hopefully be more consistently around
1000Mpbs. So I should not expect fastest throughput, simply a fatter pipe?
If it matters these are the hashing options available on the switch:
Thanks,
Dermot
Src MAC, VLAN, EType, incoming port
Dest MAC, VLAN, EType, incoming port
Src/Dest MAC, VLAN, EType, incoming port
Src IP and Src TCP/UDP Port fields
Dest IP and Dest TCP/UDP Port fields
Src/Dest IP and TCP/UDP Port fields
Enhanced hashing mode
On 25 March 2013 14:56, James Hogarth <james.hogarth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Does anyone have any thoughts? I pasted some details below increase they
> > have a bearing.
> >
>
>
> Remember that LACP (802.3ad) uses a hash algorithm (configurable on how
> it's carried out and whether you use mac addresses, dst/src IPs and ports
> will vary quite often for optimisation) to pick a physical connection for
> the TCP flow ... and that will stay over the physical connection.
>
> As such for any one given flow you'll see up to the speed of the physical
> interface the data is going over... the speed increases come with multiple
> systems communicating with that server and with the right pick of hashing
> function having those connections go over differing interfaces.
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
