----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 7:48
PM
Subject: Re: [Ltsp-discuss] Link
aggregation [Was: Colision when using ltsp]
Link aggregation is basically having 2 or
more network adapters acting a single logical unit to provide fault tolerance
and load balancing. This analogous to modem pool or a printer pool. Here
is a little bit more technical definition:
Multiple NICs are grouped together by assigning
the same IP address on all the NICs. This group will work as a single logical
interface for all the applications running on the server as well as the hosts
connected to the server using this IP address. Load balancing and fault
tolerance can be enabled for this group to balance the server load on all the
NICs and provide uninterrupted service in case of NIC failure.
The beauty of link aggregation is that
the more NICs that you have in the group (pool), the better your
throughput. For instance, if you had 2 100Mb network adapters in the
pool then your throughput from the server to the switch in theory is
200Mb/s, if you had 4 NICs in the pool the throughput would be 400Mb/s and so
on. If one of the adapters were to fail, the other adapters will take up
the slack and network service would not be interrupted.
The problem with this strategy is that most of
the link aggregation technologies are NIC vendor dependant where NIC drivers
and switches would communicate using proprietary protocol. The IEEE 802.3ad Port
Aggregation
standard will address this issue. Also, the link
aggregation NIC driver software is usually written
primarily for NetWare or Windows network operating
system. So you may have to do some research to find a
Linux-based solution.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 5:27
PM
Subject: [Ltsp-discuss] Link aggregation [Was:
Colision when using ltsp]
> Conrad,
>
> I understand why replacing
hubs with switches is an improvement.
> However, I never heard of link
aggregation. What does it do and how
> does it improve the network
performance? Why is it one has to
> _invest_ in it?
>
>
> On 19-Oct-02 Conrad Lawes wrote:
> >
> >
I would argue that you should use a switch (not a hub) when using
> >
ltsp. A switch will definitely minimize network collision.
> >
Whenever you are running multiple diskless clients it's important
> >
that you reduce as much network bottleneck as possible to maximize
>
> performance. Using 100/Mb switches instead of hubs is one way
of
> > reducing network bottlenecks. An additional option
is to invest
> > in link aggregation (nic pooling) solution on the
ltsp server.
> >
> > Remi BERNHARD
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> > On 17 Oct 2002 17:21:13 +0000, Joyce LAMBERT
wrote
> >> > > When ltsp is used, i can notice lots colision
when using ltsp.
> >> > > More tere
> >> >
> are worstation working and more colision i have.
> >> >
>
> >> > > So with 4 worstation, the network become realy
slowly and
> >> > > can't be used.
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> Wouter DeBacker
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> 19-Oct-02 23:27:39 (SuSE
Linux Xfmail)
> --------------------------------------------
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net
email is sponsored by:
> Access Your PC Securely with GoToMyPC. Try Free
Now
> https://www.gotomypc.com/s/OSND/DD
>
_____________________________________________________________________
>
Ltsp-discuss mailing list. To un-subscribe, or change prefs,
goto:
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss
> For additional LTSP help, try #ltsp
channel on irc.openprojects.net
>
