Archives


- Beowulf
- Beowulf Announce
- Scyld-users
- Beowulf on Debian

switch for channel bonding

Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.

Search

Bogdan Costescu Bogdan.Costescu at IWR.Uni-Heidelberg.De
Fri Aug 18 09:53:27 PDT 2000


On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Paul Nowoczynski wrote:

> trunking, link aggregation, channel bonding, are all the same.  i think
> the best method is to use 2 switches. the problem that i've seen on both
> cisco and intel switches is that the recv streams are not divided between
> the 2 recv'ing interfaces.  so don't expect to see ~180 mbits/sec
> between a point-to-point sender/receiver application if you're using the
> switch's trunking capability,  you'll need multiple streams to get that.

Sorry to dissapoint you, but I got this working. My BayNetworks 350-24T
sends packets in the Round-Robin fashion and I was able to get more than
180 Mbit/s (measured with ttcp) with 2 3C905C cards in each node.
One Cisco switch (that I have used but I don't administer) gave me at the
beginning strange results. ifconfig would show for my 2 bonded NICs the
same number of Tx packets, but very unbalanced Rx packets. Empirically (by
looking at the LEDs on the back of the cards) I found that only one link
was used normally and only if this link was busy, the second would be
used. However, after I talked to the admin, I got "normal" results from
ifconfig, showing very similar numbers for Rx packets; I haven't asked
him again, but I guess that he changed something in the switch config (as
the traffic didn't change). However, I'm not sure if this can change the
bandwidth results.

> but if you can wire your cluster so that interface0 goes to one switch and
> interface1 goes to another switch then you could get good point-to-point
> bandwidth.

Using 2 different switches is one approach, but only solves one class of
problems. For example, if you need 3 NICs/nodes, you need 3 switches and
so on; the wiring might become problematic. On the other hand, there are
applications which require only one node (let's call it master) to
send/receive large amounts of data, while the computing nodes handle
amounts of data which can "fit" into normal (single NIC) bandwidth. This
problem can easily be solved by having a switch which supports
channel-bonding/trunking/link-aggregation to which the master will be
linked through bonded links, while the compute nodes will be able to use
just 1 NIC. (and this applies just as well to a NFS server).

Sincerely,

Bogdan Costescu

IWR - Interdisziplinaeres Zentrum fuer Wissenschaftliches Rechnen
Universitaet Heidelberg, INF 368, D-69120 Heidelberg, GERMANY
Telephone: +49 6221 54 8869, Telefax: +49 6221 54 8868
E-mail: Bogdan.Costescu at IWR.Uni-Heidelberg.De





More information about the Beowulf mailing list