On 05/18/2011 05:34 PM, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
> On 05/18/2011 05:07 PM, Giovanni Tirloni wrote:
>> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Sašo Kiselkov <skiselkov...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I'm having trouble getting my server to spread the transmit data over an
>>> aggregated link (Sun Fire X2250) create from its two on-board
>>> interfaces. Below is the configuration of the aggregation:
>>>
>>> # dladm show-aggr
>>> LINK POLICY ADDRPOLICY LACPACTIVITY LACPTIMER
>>> FLAGS
>>> aggr1 L2,L3,L4 auto active short
>>> -----
>>>
>>> # dladm show-aggr -x aggr1
>>> LINK PORT SPEED DUPLEX STATE ADDRESS
>>> PORTSTATE
>>> aggr1 -- 1000Mb full up 0:23:8b:ce:45:c2 --
>>> e1000g0 1000Mb full up 0:23:8b:ce:45:c2
>>> attached
>>> e1000g1 1000Mb full up 0:23:8b:ce:45:c3
>>> attached
>>>
>>> The other end is an Extreme Network X450a switch stack and everything is
>>> configured correctly on its end of the link aggregation. I'm streaming
>>> video over this link to a few dozen clients over UDP and given the
>>> transmit policy, I should see at least some transmit utilization on
>>> either link. However, for some reason, the system doesn't load-balance
>>> at all, instead sending almost all (99.9%) though e1000g0.
>>>
>>> Can somebody please help me find out why the server is sending
>>> everything through the first link and ignoring the second? The switch is
>>> also streaming some data back to me and there I can see a near perfect
>>> 50-50% split of the transmit data, so the link appears to be configured
>>> fine...
>>
>> Have you experimented with L2,L3 or L2 policies?
>>
>> Does it send anything "useful" through the almost idle link? If so,
>> what is it exactly?
>>
>> Do you have direct access to the clients or is it going through a
>> proxy? Can you send just a few packet samples from the busy link?
>
> My application is a video streaming server. Clients connect to it using
> TCP for control (RTSP) and then the server streams video data to them in
> a separate UDP stream. On the server side, a new process is spawned for
> each stream, thus each stream originates in a different socket. It
> appears that the only stuff being sent out through the idle link is the
> TCP portion of the load (which is relatively miniscule, a few dozen
> packets per second at most), whereas all of the UDP traffic goes through
> one interface (> 10k packets per second).
>
> Initially I only had the L4 policy on it. Then I tried many different
> combinations, but none helped.
>
> The system (including the switch-side) is completely under my control.
> I've attached a sample of the packet headers flying over the high-volume
> interface.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Saso
Sorry to reply to myself, but so far I still fail to discover why my
aggr link always sends all data through a single link. I tried to
unconfigure link aggregation on the idle link and reconfigure it back,
but to no avail. Upon putting the idle link back into the aggregation I
noticed the following in dmesg:
May 22 21:56:20 ba-sitel-iptv-mon-01 unix: [ID 665567 kern.warning]
WARNING: kstat_create('aggr906001', 0, 'mac_tx_hwlane1'): namespace
collision
May 22 21:56:20 ba-sitel-iptv-mon-01 unix: [ID 665567 kern.warning]
WARNING: kstat_create('aggr901001', 0, 'mac_tx_hwlane1'): namespace
collision
May 22 21:56:20 ba-sitel-iptv-mon-01 unix: [ID 665567 kern.warning]
WARNING: kstat_create('aggr930001', 0, 'mac_tx_hwlane1'): namespace
collision
May 22 21:56:20 ba-sitel-iptv-mon-01 unix: [ID 665567 kern.warning]
WARNING: kstat_create('aggr932001', 0, 'mac_tx_hwlane1'): namespace
collision
May 22 21:56:23 ba-sitel-iptv-mon-01 mac: [ID 435574 kern.info] NOTICE:
e1000g1 link up, 1000 Mbps, full duplex
Vlan930 is the one where all of the streaming takes place, so could it
be that the OS is having trouble assigning the vlan to the physical
interface?
BR,
--
Saso
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
networking-discuss@opensolaris.org
