On 19/01/2011 12:00, Arne Svennevik wrote:
On 18/01/2011 22:27, chris stand wrote:
Do any of you support / host servers from GE ?
Anyone have any of them in LACP port channels ?
Yes. Be very careful with your switch uplinks if you do this, because
applications can be badly behaved and can cause serious problems due
to microbursting.
Would you mind to elaborate this? Along with some pointers on what to look for
to detect it?
This was a very badly worded reply to the OP - I had something specific in
mind when writing it, and then clicked "send" before reading the nonsense I
had written.
There are generally two reasons for implementing LAGs: resilience and
capacity. If you're implementing them for pure resilience and your traffic
levels are pretty log, then that's fine. However, if it's for capacity
reasons and you're dealing with bursty traffic, you need to be careful with
your uplink capacity, particularly if your uplink bearer channels are the
same capacity as your uplink bearer channels.
As always, it comes back to badly behaved applications creating
microbursts, bad hashing algorithms used for LAG load distribution and bad
monitoring for not catching these issues before they become a problem.
Gert Doering posted a good example of this a couple of months ago:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg33606.html
Nick
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
