Kenneth, So, I'll have to look into duplexing also. I'm beginning to think that the studying of this kind of server improvement techniques is going to keep me busy for a while. :-)
Thank you, Wouter On 20-Oct-02 Kenneth Godee wrote: > >> 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. > > > Don't forget Duplexing, in theory 2 100mb nics duplexed will > provide 400mbs! > > >> 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. > > Not only NIC driver dependant, OS dependant but "switches" are > quite picky as well. > Unless your using same switch and NIC manufactured devices good > luck asking any questions > to the manufacture. > It's usally not much of a monetary investment, usally a time > investment, there's > lots of stuff out there and features built into the switches > already, just getting it all to > work and talk to each other takes time, I don't believe you'll have > much success > unless your using higher end managed switches. > But it's alot of fun to set up and does increase performance. > And as always there's more than one way to skin a cat..... > The compaq/ltsp server where setting up now had dual embedded nics, > instead of bonding, load balancing > etc. we assigned different ip's to same subnet, > one nic for ltsp workstations and the other nic assigned for admin, > database, etc. traffic. > This allows you to "split" up the traffic and in the future if we > want to set up the ltsp > workstations in a "virtual" net, we're good to go. Assigning dual > nic's in same subnet is a > bugger, but it can be done. > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "LTSP discussion list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> 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 >> > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > 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 -------------------------------------------- Wouter DeBacker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 21-Oct-02 21:12:35 (SuSE Linux Xfmail) -------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net emial is sponsored by: Influence the future of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4699841;7576298;k? http://www.sun.com/javavote _____________________________________________________________________ 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
