Kernel load balancing
Hi, I have posted an ealier question to this effect that could provide more context: (wrapped) http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=827757+0+archive/2003/freebsd-questions/20030713.freebsd-questions I would like to know where I can find out if FreeBSD spreads the network load across 2 interfaces of equal weight to the same subnet, or if it just tries to push everything out the lowest numbered interface. Cheers, Derek ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Kernel load balancing
Derek Marcotte wrote: [ ... ] I would like to know where I can find out if FreeBSD spreads the network load across 2 interfaces of equal weight to the same subnet, or if it just tries to push everything out the lowest numbered interface. FreeBSD doesn't want you to put multiple NICs on the same subnet, modulo the following section from man bridge: By putting both physical and logical (vlanX) interfaces in the same clus- ter, a FreeBSD box can also implement what in commercial terms is called a trunk interface. This means packets coming from one of the interfaces in the cluster, will appear on the wire on the parent interfaces of any vlan interface belonging to the cluster, with the proper VLAN tag. Simi- larly, packets coming from a parent interface, will have the VLAN tag stripped and will be forwarded to other interfaces on the same cluster. See the EXAMPLES section for more details. Do you want to do trunking for extra bandwidth, for redundancy in case of failure...what problem are you trying to solve? -- -Chuck ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Kernel load balancing
Do you want to do trunking for extra bandwidth, for redundancy in case of failure...what problem are you trying to solve? Exactly... Both. Ok, so let's make this a little more complex. Here's how I envisioned this working. Subnet A 192.168.0.0/24 Subnet B 192.168.1.0/24 Subnet C 192.168.2.0/30 Subnet D 192.168.2.4/30 Router 1 fxp0 192.168.0.1/24 fxp1 192.168.2.1/30 fxp2 192.168.2.5/30 Router 2 fxp0 192.168.1.1/24 fxp1 192.168.2.2/30 fxp2 192.168.2.6/30 router1 route add 192.168.1.0/24 192.168.2.2 router1 route add 192.168.1.0/24 192.168.2.6 router2 route add 192.168.0.0/24 192.168.2.1 router2 route add 192.168.0.0/24 192.168.2.5 (may wrap) SubnetA---fxp0---router1fxp1 Subnet C fxp1router2---fxp0---SubnetB SubnetA---fxp0---router1fxp2 Subnet D fxp2router2---fxp0---SubnetB I intend to run Zebra and OSPF on routers 1 and 2. Subnets A and B are 100 Mbit/s networks. Subnets C and D are 10 Mbit/s networks, I would like to have a ~20 Mbit/s pipe when both lines are up, but if one fails, it dumbs down to ten. I am familiar with OSPF enough to (hopefully :) make it through the routing and failover, but I don't feel that Zebra will give me a 20 Mbit pipe. I am thinking about this in a routing frame of mind... Perhaps if there is a way to just pair up the adapters at the ethernet level it would be a simpler solution, but it would have to be able to fail over without blinking... I do not of such a capacity in FreeBSD, but if there is one, I would love to hear about it. Does this help to clarify the situation? Cheers, Derek ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]