hi,
after testing severals loadbalancing (LACP) types with Cisco, we saw,
that we never get more than 112MB/s with two network cards and iperf.
So, we tested without loadbalancing, 4 Clients (iperf -f M -c ip) and
two target IPs. Every IP has his own 1Gb/s network card.
On the end, two clients
Am 11.04.2011 um 16:20 schrieb Michael Loftis:
Most switches load balance based on MAC addresses, not IP, unless it
is routing the traffic as a Layer 3 switch then you can enable IP
based load balancing in some of those. Also you might simply be
that was the reason, why we disabled the
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Mikolaj Golub troc...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 11:08:16 -0700 Freddie Cash wrote:
FC Once the deadlock patches above are MFC'd to -STABLE, I can do an
FC upgrade cycle and test them.
Committed to STABLE.
Updated src tree to r220537.
On 4/11/2011 12:55 PM, Denny Schierz said this:
Am 11.04.2011 um 16:20 schrieb Michael Loftis:
Most switches load balance based on MAC addresses, not IP, unless it
is routing the traffic as a Layer 3 switch then you can enable IP
based load balancing in some of those. Also you might
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:26:15 -0700 Freddie Cash wrote:
FC On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Mikolaj Golub troc...@freebsd.org
wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 11:08:16 -0700 Freddie Cash wrote:
FC Once the deadlock patches above are MFC'd to -STABLE, I can do an
FC upgrade cycle and test
hi,
Am 11.04.2011 um 20:06 schrieb Tim Daneliuk:
Are you certain you are not somehow running active-passive instead of
active-active ...
just a thought...
150% sure. I used two dedicated NICs WITHOUT any loadbalancing. The sum has to
be more than 112MB/s.
cu denny
ps. I get every answer
On 11.4.2011 6:08, Ian Smith wrote:
As you see, total of differences for each cpu is here 89 ticks, but I've
no idea of the interval between your two readings, or your value of HZ?
the interval may have been around 1-2 seconds.
My value of HZ is default, 1000.
Are those kern.cp_times values
