On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Janne Johansson <icepic...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure if I am misunderstanding your direction of "inbound", but that > would be an effect of what the switch does, would it not? > If the switch isn't configured for LACP correctly, then it would send the > traffic to one of them, only.
again, consider the following output IFACE STATE DESC IPKTS IBYTES IERRS OPKTS OBYTES OERRS COLLS bnx0 up:U 2873 2956K 0 2 977 0 0 bnx1 up:U 5 360 0 3119 2604K 0 0 trunk0 up:U 2878 2956K 0 3121 2605K 0 0 (inbound is distributed via single interface, outbound - via 2nd interface in trunk) IFACE STATE DESC IPKTS IBYTES IERRS OPKTS OBYTES OERRS COLLS em0 up:U 2711 2859K 0 5593 5222K 0 0 em1 up:U 2867 2343K 0 10 3226 0 0 trunk0 up:U 5578 5202K 0 5603 5225K 0 0 (inbound is distributed via both interfaces, outbound - via 1st interface in trunk) I'm less worried about outbound, however it is interesting why em(4) setup uses first interface, but bnx(4) setup uses second. by "1st" and "2nd" I mean an order of addition inside hostname.if $ cat /etc/hostname.trunk0 trunkproto lacp trunkport bnx0 trunkport bnx1 up -inet6 $ cat /etc/hostname.trunk0 trunkproto lacp trunkport em0 trunkport em1 up -inet6 on switch itself, both trunks have no visible difference in configuration. > > > > 2013/11/11 Alexey Suslikov <alexey.susli...@gmail.com> >> >> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> >> wrote: >> > "master" on em0/em1/bnx0 is nothing to do with trunk, it is about the >> > gigabit ethernet clocking source. >> >> ok, but it is obvious: documentation is unclear (silent) about that. >> >> > >> > lacp hashing policy is the same as for loadbalance, see the manpage and >> > confirm in trunk_hashmbuf(). >> >> I see different inbound packet distribution on trunk on-top of em(4)s >> and on trunk on top of bnx(4)s - >> that's the real problem. >> > > > > -- > May the most significant bit of your life be positive.
