Channel-bonding 2.2 vs 2.4?
weller at zyvex.com
Mon Aug 6 14:27:55 PDT 2001
Hello, I started a thread on the list about a month ago, and I've
finally found some time to play with channel-bonding again. I'm
still having problems.
Here's a memory-refresher:
My switch (HP Procurve 4000) supports load-balancing/trunking and
VLANs. I was taking the wrong approach, apparently.
1) At first, I was attempted to do load-balancing with the switch. I'd
create individual trunk groups for the channel-bonded ports. This
had moderate success, but wasn't what I wanted since the switch
would distribute traffic based on the source address. I could
never get 200Mbps this way.
2) Someone on the beowulf at beowulf.org mailing list suggested setting
up a VLAN. I created 2 VLANs to isolate the networks. To make a
long story short, my switch supports VLANs, but duplicate MAC
addresses confuse it.
3) I followed up on this suggestion provided by Jakob:
From: <jakob at unthought.net>
>You can buy separate switches, unmanaged dirt cheap ones.
>Trunking N nics per node, requires N switches.
>This works, is simple, and it's cheap.
I tried dirt cheap linksys switches... put all eth0's on 1 switch
and all eth1's on the other switch. The RX and TX's are even on
both sides. I can communicate with it. Unfortunately, I only
achieve 50Mbps as opposed to 200Mbps :-( Using the same hardware
and OS, I achieve 100Mbps in un-channel-bonded mode.
4) Someone else on the list wrote:
From: R C <zarquon at zarq.dhs.org>
>As you found out, the HPs don't support duplicate NATs on seperate
>VLANs (even states this in the manual, but I had to dig to find it).
>At that point I borrowed the lab switch and hooked it in. Using
>2.4.x, and 2 channels, I got about 160-170 Mbps with an Intel eepro100
>(onboard) and an Adaptec duralan (starfire?) card. The adaptec
>tended to hiccup and give "Something Wicked Happened!" during full
>speed tests, but rarely pulled down below 150 Mbps.
>Tests were done using ttcp, linux 2.4.4?, and Dell server boxes
>(dual 500, 512MB).
I noticed that he was using the 2.4 kernel and Scyld was still
using 2.2. I started to wonder if there were bonding issues with
the 2.2 kernel. I decided to take Scyld out of the equation and
using 2 linux boxes with the 2.4.7 kernel (with a mandrake base):
[root at n0 /tmp]# uname -a
Linux n0 2.4.7mw2 #2 Tue Jul 24 19:54:20 CDT 2001 i686 unknown
More information about the Beowulf