Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 6:23 AM, James Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mag Gam wrote: >> Thanks Jim. Since, 802.3ad requires switch settings does it perform better >> than other modes? Does anyone have any benchmarks? > > I haven't done any benchmarks - but as I've managed to get 200+Mbyte/s r

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

Mag Gam wrote: Thanks Jim. Since, 802.3ad requires switch settings does it perform better than other modes? Does anyone have any benchmarks? I haven't done any benchmarks - but as I've managed to get 200+Mbyte/s read speeds using mode 6 with a dual link - I can't see it would be any faster wi

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

Thanks Jim. Since, 802.3ad requires switch settings does it perform better than other modes? Does anyone have any benchmarks? TIA On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 7:19 AM, James Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mag Gam wrote: > >> Just out of curiosity. >> >> If you wanted to bond do you have to ask

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

Mag Gam wrote: Just out of curiosity. If you wanted to bond do you have to ask your network admin to configure a special switch setting for MAC addresses? AFAIK, only with 802.3ad The other Linux bonding modes don't require any switch settings James Pearson _

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

On 5/22/08, Mag Gam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just out of curiosity. > > If you wanted to bond do you have to ask your network admin to configure a > special switch setting for MAC addresses? > depends on the mode of bonding

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

Just out of curiosity. If you wanted to bond do you have to ask your network admin to configure a special switch setting for MAC addresses? On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:27 PM, James Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Timothy Selivanow wrote: > >> >> I've changed the switch out, unfortunately to s

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

Timothy Selivanow wrote: I've changed the switch out, unfortunately to something that I know doesn't support 802.3ad, but I'm still unable to get aggregate link bandwidth using mode 0, 2, and 6. I'm using scp to test the bandwidth, one machine with one interface, one with two bonded, and one wi

RE: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 10:48 -0700, Timothy Selivanow wrote: > On Sat, 2008-04-12 at 11:06 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote: > > > Can you post the ifcfg files used and the output of /proc/net/bonding/bond0? > > This is for one system. I have another one that I've been working on > too, and it too

RE: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

On Sat, 2008-04-12 at 11:06 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote: > Can you post the ifcfg files used and the output of /proc/net/bonding/bond0? This is for one system. I have another one that I've been working on too, and it too doesn't work with 'port group 2' on the two switch ports that it is conn

RE: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

Timothy Selivanow wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 17:23 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote: > > > This should give you what you need when doing 802.3ad LAGs: > > > > interface FastEthernet0/21 > > port group 1 > > spanning-tree portfast > > ! > > interface FastEthernet0/22 > > port group 1 > >

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 19:45 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > Timothy Selivanow wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 17:23 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote: > > > >> This should give you what you need when doing 802.3ad LAGs: > >> > >> interface FastEthernet0/21 > >> port group 1 > >> spanning-tree portfas

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 19:51 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > John wrote: > > > >>> Now for what version of the 2900 you have I do not know. But it seems > >>> the info on Ciscos site is kind of misleading in places. There is some > >>> documentation that says it works and some say you have to have th

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

John wrote: Now for what version of the 2900 you have I do not know. But it seems the info on Ciscos site is kind of misleading in places. There is some documentation that says it works and some say you have to have the add on modules. Your best bet if your not comfortable with the IOS comma

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

Timothy Selivanow wrote: On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 17:23 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote: This should give you what you need when doing 802.3ad LAGs: interface FastEthernet0/21 port group 1 spanning-tree portfast ! interface FastEthernet0/22 port group 1 spanning-tree portfast ! Using this on

RE: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 17:13 -0700, Timothy Selivanow wrote: > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 17:23 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote: > > > This should give you what you need when doing 802.3ad LAGs: > > > > interface FastEthernet0/21 > > port group 1 > > spanning-tree portfast > > ! > > interface FastEthe

RE: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 17:23 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote: > This should give you what you need when doing 802.3ad LAGs: > > interface FastEthernet0/21 > port group 1 > spanning-tree portfast > ! > interface FastEthernet0/22 > port group 1 > spanning-tree portfast > ! Using this on the swit

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 18:05 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > John wrote: > > > > Now for what version of the 2900 you have I do not know. But it seems > > the info on Ciscos site is kind of misleading in places. There is some > > documentation that says it works and some say you have to have the add

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

John wrote: Now for what version of the 2900 you have I do not know. But it seems the info on Ciscos site is kind of misleading in places. There is some documentation that says it works and some say you have to have the add on modules. Your best bet if your not comfortable with the IOS comma

RE: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 17:23 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote: > Les Mikesell wrote: > > Ross S. W. Walker wrote: > > > > > > > I don't think you need to do all that: > > > > > > Check out: > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst2900xl_3500xl/release12.0_5_wc3/swg/Swgports.html >

RE: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 16:59 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote: > John wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 15:46 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote: > > > Timothy Selivanow wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 15:14 -0400, John wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:08 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > > > > >

RE: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

Les Mikesell wrote: > Ross S. W. Walker wrote: > > > > > I don't think you need to do all that: > > > > Check out: > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst2900xl_3500xl/release12.0_5_wc3/swg/Swgports.html > > > > > I've run 2900xl's connected to each other though 2 ports

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

Ross S. W. Walker wrote: > I don't think you need to do all that: Check out: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst2900xl_3500xl/release12.0_5_wc3/swg/Swgports.html I've run 2900xl's connected to each other though 2 ports each configured with: port group 1 distribu

RE: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

John wrote: > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 15:46 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote: > > Timothy Selivanow wrote: > > > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 15:14 -0400, John wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:08 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > > > > > Timothy Selivanow wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400

RE: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 15:46 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote: > Timothy Selivanow wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 15:14 -0400, John wrote: > > > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:08 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > > > > Timothy Selivanow wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote: > > > > >>

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 12:33 -0700, Timothy Selivanow wrote: > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 15:14 -0400, John wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:08 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > > > Timothy Selivanow wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote: > > > >> If I paid a couple grand for a core

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 12:33 -0700, Timothy Selivanow wrote: > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 15:14 -0400, John wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:08 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > > > Timothy Selivanow wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote: > > > >> If I paid a couple grand for a core

RE: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

Timothy Selivanow wrote: > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 15:14 -0400, John wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:08 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > > > Timothy Selivanow wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote: > > > >> If I paid a couple grand for a core switch i'd be calling Cisco! > > >

RE: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

Les Mikesell wrote: > John wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:08 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > >> Timothy Selivanow wrote: > >>> On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote: > If I paid a couple grand for a core switch i'd be calling Cisco! > > >>> They're not core switches, they're jus

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 15:14 -0400, John wrote: > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:08 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > > Timothy Selivanow wrote: > > > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote: > > >> If I paid a couple grand for a core switch i'd be calling Cisco! > > >> > > > > > > They're not core swi

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

John wrote: On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:08 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: Timothy Selivanow wrote: On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote: If I paid a couple grand for a core switch i'd be calling Cisco! They're not core switches, they're just the catalyst 2900XL which is a small 24 port swi

RE: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

Timothy Selivanow wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote: > > If I paid a couple grand for a core switch i'd be calling Cisco! > > > > They're not core switches, they're just the catalyst 2900XL which is a > small 24 port switch. We've got stacks of these sitting unused, so I

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:08 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > Timothy Selivanow wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote: > >> If I paid a couple grand for a core switch i'd be calling Cisco! > >> > > > > They're not core switches, they're just the catalyst 2900XL which is a > > small 2

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 11:49 -0700, Timothy Selivanow wrote: > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote: > > If I paid a couple grand for a core switch i'd be calling Cisco! > > > > They're not core switches, they're just the catalyst 2900XL which is a > small 24 port switch. We've got stack

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

Timothy Selivanow wrote: On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote: If I paid a couple grand for a core switch i'd be calling Cisco! They're not core switches, they're just the catalyst 2900XL which is a small 24 port switch. We've got stacks of these sitting unused, so I doubt they're t

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote: > If I paid a couple grand for a core switch i'd be calling Cisco! > They're not core switches, they're just the catalyst 2900XL which is a small 24 port switch. We've got stacks of these sitting unused, so I doubt they're too expensive/valuable.

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 13:43 -0400, Guy Boisvert wrote: > You may have a look at: > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/140.pdf > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps607/products_configuration_example09186a0080094789.shtml > I've looked at both of these documents already. In th

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 13:43 -0400, Guy Boisvert wrote: > Timothy Selivanow wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 11:24 +0100, Michael Simpson wrote: > >> Certainly the 2900 will support 802.3ad or LACP natively. > >> > >> i found this which may be of use > >> > >>

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

Timothy Selivanow wrote: On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 11:24 +0100, Michael Simpson wrote: Certainly the 2900 will support 802.3ad or LACP natively. i found this which may be of use So, as it turns

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 11:24 +0100, Michael Simpson wrote: > Certainly the 2900 will support 802.3ad or LACP natively. > > i found this which may be of use > > So, as it turns out, it's a 2900XL,

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

On 4/9/08, Timothy Selivanow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm try to bond a few interfaces together with the hopes of getting > increased throughput, and I'm using a cisco Catalyst 2900 as the switch. > I've tried using mode 0, 5, and 6 with nothing special on the switch, > and mode 4 with some por

Re: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 15:47 -0700, Timothy Selivanow wrote: > I'm try to bond a few interfaces together with the hopes of getting > increased throughput, and I'm using a cisco Catalyst 2900 as the switch. > I've tried using mode 0, 5, and 6 with nothing special on the switch, > and mode 4 with some

RE: [CentOS] Interface bonding?

>I'm try to bond a few interfaces together with the hopes of getting >increased throughput, and I'm using a cisco Catalyst 2900 as the switch. >I've tried using mode 0, 5, and 6 with nothing special on the switch, >and mode 4 with some ports "trunked" together (I have a feeling that the >"trunking"

[CentOS] Interface bonding?

I'm try to bond a few interfaces together with the hopes of getting increased throughput, and I'm using a cisco Catalyst 2900 as the switch. I've tried using mode 0, 5, and 6 with nothing special on the switch, and mode 4 with some ports "trunked" together (I have a feeling that the "trunking" that