RE: Interface bonding?

[Timothy Selivanow <timothy.selivanow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 10:48 -0700, Timothy Selivanow wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-04-12 at 11:06 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> 
> > Can you post the ifcfg files used and the output of /proc/net/bonding/bond0?
> 
> This is for one system.  I have another one that I've been working on
> too, and it too doesn't work with 'port group 2' on the two switch ports
> that it is connected to (haven't tried adding 'spanning-tree portfast'
> to those yet).  I've been focusing on this one first as it is an iSCSI
> target, and the other one is running Xen so it's a bit more complicated
> (DomU can't get out at the moment with the bond, but Dom0 can, still no
> increased throughput...)

I've changed the switch out, unfortunately to something that I know
doesn't support 802.3ad, but I'm still unable to get aggregate link
bandwidth using mode 0, 2, and 6.  I'm using scp to test the bandwidth,
one machine with one interface, one with two bonded, and one with three
bonded.  No matter the combination of who is sending/receiving the
files, no increase in throughput.

Would using a x-over cable on two machines, using two interfaces each,
with 802.3ad (or other mode...) on both hosts work?  My inclination is
that the aggregating protocol needs a shared bus to negotiate, and
putting each channel on it's own bus (x-over cable) would defeat that...


--Tim
 ______________________________________________ 
< Support Bingo, keep Grandma off the streets. >
 ---------------------------------------------- 
  \
   \   \
        \ /\
        ( )
      .( o ).

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos