Mag Gam wrote:
Thanks Jim. Since, 802.3ad requires switch settings does it perform better
than other modes? Does anyone have any benchmarks?
I haven't done any benchmarks - but as I've managed to get 200+Mbyte/s
read speeds using mode 6 with a dual link - I can't see it would be any
faster
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 6:23 AM, James Pearson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mag Gam wrote:
Thanks Jim. Since, 802.3ad requires switch settings does it perform better
than other modes? Does anyone have any benchmarks?
I haven't done any benchmarks - but as I've managed to get 200+Mbyte/s read
On 5/22/08, Mag Gam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just out of curiosity.
If you wanted to bond do you have to ask your network admin to configure a
special switch setting for MAC addresses?
depends on the mode of bonding
http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Net:Bonding
Mag Gam wrote:
Just out of curiosity.
If you wanted to bond do you have to ask your network admin to configure a
special switch setting for MAC addresses?
AFAIK, only with 802.3ad
The other Linux bonding modes don't require any switch settings
James Pearson
Thanks Jim. Since, 802.3ad requires switch settings does it perform better
than other modes? Does anyone have any benchmarks?
TIA
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 7:19 AM, James Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Mag Gam wrote:
Just out of curiosity.
If you wanted to bond do you have to ask your
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
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
Timothy Selivanow wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 17:23 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
This should give you what you need when doing 802.3ad LAGs:
interface FastEthernet0/21
port group 1
spanning-tree portfast
!
interface FastEthernet0/22
port group 1
spanning-tree
On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 11:24 +0100, Michael Simpson wrote:
Certainly the 2900 will support 802.3ad or LACP natively.
i found this which may be of use
http://wiki.oracle.com/page/Cisco+Systems+IOS-based+switches-+interface+bonding+and+trunking?t=anon
So, as it turns out, it's a 2900XL, which
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 13:43 -0400, Guy Boisvert wrote:
Timothy Selivanow wrote:
On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 11:24 +0100, Michael Simpson wrote:
Certainly the 2900 will support 802.3ad or LACP natively.
i found this which may be of use
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 13:43 -0400, Guy Boisvert wrote:
You may have a look at:
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/140.pdf
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps607/products_configuration_example09186a0080094789.shtml
I've looked at both of these documents already. In the
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote:
If I paid a couple grand for a core switch i'd be calling Cisco!
They're not core switches, they're just the catalyst 2900XL which is a
small 24 port switch. We've got stacks of these sitting unused, so I
doubt they're too expensive/valuable.
Timothy Selivanow wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote:
If I paid a couple grand for a core switch i'd be calling Cisco!
They're not core switches, they're just the catalyst 2900XL which is a
small 24 port switch. We've got stacks of these sitting unused, so I
doubt they're
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 11:49 -0700, Timothy Selivanow wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote:
If I paid a couple grand for a core switch i'd be calling Cisco!
They're not core switches, they're just the catalyst 2900XL which is a
small 24 port switch. We've got stacks of
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:08 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Timothy Selivanow wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote:
If I paid a couple grand for a core switch i'd be calling Cisco!
They're not core switches, they're just the catalyst 2900XL which is a
small 24 port switch.
Timothy Selivanow wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote:
If I paid a couple grand for a core switch i'd be calling Cisco!
They're not core switches, they're just the catalyst 2900XL which is a
small 24 port switch. We've got stacks of these sitting unused, so I
doubt
John wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:08 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Timothy Selivanow wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote:
If I paid a couple grand for a core switch i'd be calling Cisco!
They're not core switches, they're just the catalyst 2900XL which is a
small 24 port
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 15:14 -0400, John wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:08 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Timothy Selivanow wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote:
If I paid a couple grand for a core switch i'd be calling Cisco!
They're not core switches, they're just
Les Mikesell wrote:
John wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:08 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Timothy Selivanow wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote:
If I paid a couple grand for a core switch i'd be calling Cisco!
They're not core switches, they're just the catalyst 2900XL
Timothy Selivanow wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 15:14 -0400, John wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:08 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Timothy Selivanow wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote:
If I paid a couple grand for a core switch i'd be calling Cisco!
They're
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 12:33 -0700, Timothy Selivanow wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 15:14 -0400, John wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:08 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Timothy Selivanow wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote:
If I paid a couple grand for a core switch i'd be
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 15:46 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
Timothy Selivanow wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 15:14 -0400, John wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:08 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Timothy Selivanow wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote:
If I paid a couple
John wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 15:46 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
Timothy Selivanow wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 15:14 -0400, John wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:08 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Timothy Selivanow wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
I don't think you need to do all that:
Check out:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst2900xl_3500xl/release12.0_5_wc3/swg/Swgports.html
I've run 2900xl's connected to each other though 2 ports each configured
with:
port group 1
Les Mikesell wrote:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
I don't think you need to do all that:
Check out:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst2900xl_3500xl/release12.0_5_wc3/swg/Swgports.html
I've run 2900xl's connected to each other though 2 ports each
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 16:59 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
John wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 15:46 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
Timothy Selivanow wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 15:14 -0400, John wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:08 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Timothy Selivanow
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 17:23 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
I don't think you need to do all that:
Check out:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst2900xl_3500xl/release12.0_5_wc3/swg/Swgports.html
John wrote:
Now for what version of the 2900 you have I do not know. But it seems
the info on Ciscos site is kind of misleading in places. There is some
documentation that says it works and some say you have to have the add
on modules.
Your best bet if your not comfortable with the IOS
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 18:05 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
John wrote:
Now for what version of the 2900 you have I do not know. But it seems
the info on Ciscos site is kind of misleading in places. There is some
documentation that says it works and some say you have to have the add
on
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 17:23 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
This should give you what you need when doing 802.3ad LAGs:
interface FastEthernet0/21
port group 1
spanning-tree portfast
!
interface FastEthernet0/22
port group 1
spanning-tree portfast
!
Using this on the switch and
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 17:13 -0700, Timothy Selivanow wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 17:23 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
This should give you what you need when doing 802.3ad LAGs:
interface FastEthernet0/21
port group 1
spanning-tree portfast
!
interface FastEthernet0/22
Timothy Selivanow wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 17:23 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
This should give you what you need when doing 802.3ad LAGs:
interface FastEthernet0/21
port group 1
spanning-tree portfast
!
interface FastEthernet0/22
port group 1
spanning-tree portfast
!
Using this
John wrote:
Now for what version of the 2900 you have I do not know. But it seems
the info on Ciscos site is kind of misleading in places. There is some
documentation that says it works and some say you have to have the add
on modules.
Your best bet if your not comfortable with the IOS
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 19:51 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
John wrote:
Now for what version of the 2900 you have I do not know. But it seems
the info on Ciscos site is kind of misleading in places. There is some
documentation that says it works and some say you have to have the add
on
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 19:45 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Timothy Selivanow wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 17:23 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
This should give you what you need when doing 802.3ad LAGs:
interface FastEthernet0/21
port group 1
spanning-tree portfast
!
interface
On 4/9/08, Timothy Selivanow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm try to bond a few interfaces together with the hopes of getting
increased throughput, and I'm using a cisco Catalyst 2900 as the switch.
I've tried using mode 0, 5, and 6 with nothing special on the switch,
and mode 4 with some ports
I'm try to bond a few interfaces together with the hopes of getting
increased throughput, and I'm using a cisco Catalyst 2900 as the switch.
I've tried using mode 0, 5, and 6 with nothing special on the switch,
and mode 4 with some ports trunked together (I have a feeling that the
trunking that
On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 15:47 -0700, Timothy Selivanow wrote:
I'm try to bond a few interfaces together with the hopes of getting
increased throughput, and I'm using a cisco Catalyst 2900 as the switch.
I've tried using mode 0, 5, and 6 with nothing special on the switch,
and mode 4 with some
38 matches
Mail list logo
