Does my channel bond work-2
abhishek Sinha
aby_sinha at yahoo.com
Wed May 8 19:14:54 PDT 2002
Hi Beowulfers
--- Martin Siegert <siegert at sfu.ca> wrote:
> First of all: does your channel bonding setup work
> without a switch,
> i.e., just with two cross over cables between two
> nodes?
> If that is the case, then clearly the switch
> configuration is at fault.
>
YEs that is the case
> Channel bonding works by assigning the same Mac
> address to both NICs
> in the box. Switches get confused, if they see
> traffic on different
> ports coming from the same Mac address. This problem
> is solved
> by either
> - using one switch for each trunk (i.e., switch 1
> for all the first NICs
> in each host, switch 2 for all the second NICs in
> each host). This is
> the easiest setup and that is what I am using.
> - or by setting up VLANs on the switch and
> connecting the first NICs to
> one VLAN and the second NICs to another. Obviously
> the switch must
> support VLANs. I do not know whether the HP switch
> does.
What is exactly happening is that when i am trying to
send packets from one node to another, all my packets
are coming out from the One interface but they get
load balanced on both the nics when they reach the
other nodes. For Eg , when i send 10 packets my eth0
for node 1 sends all of them but at node 2 5 packets
get received by eth0 and 5 by eth1. Does this always
happen in channel bonding. Shouldnt the packets come
out load balanced from the node .
the other thing is related to the switch that i am
using. The HP pro curve 4000M has an option where you
can trunk lines to load balance / channel bond.
this is what happens when i use netperf. since the
packets only come out of the one interface i am
getting a ~90 MBPs on the sender side. I also tried
doing this with VLANs . I put all eth0 s in one
untagged VLAN and all the eth1 s in another untagged
VLAN.Again the same performacne using netperf.And
Still the load doesnt balance properly.
I know my channel bond is working since when i tried
using cross over cables and then used netperf I got
191MBPs. But when the switch comes into picture ; i
just dont know what happens.
Any suggestions on this one..
-A
> On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 04:47:22PM -0700, abhishek
> Sinha wrote:
> > Now this is some interesting stuff that i actually
> > found out
> >
> > I just monitored the packets from the switch to
> see
> > actually where they are going into
> >
> >
> > TRK1 =node2
> > TRK2=node1
> >
> > When Sending a big file from node2 to node1
> >
> > HP ProCurve Switch 4000M DEFAULT_CONFIG
>
> > 1-Jan-1990 1:09:08
> > ==========================- CONSOLE - MANAGER MODE
> > -============================
> > Status and Counters - Port Counters
> >
> > Port Total Bytes Total Frames Errors
> Rx
> > Drops Tx
> > ------- ------------- -------------
> -------------
> > -------------
> > A1 0 0
> 0
> > 0
> > C1-Trk1 3,640,711 48,116
> 0
> > 0
> > C2-Trk1 100,742,642 71,606
> 0
> > 0
> > C3-Trk2 50,523,420 35,804
> 0
> > 0
> > C4-Trk2 53,859,933 83,918
> 0
> > 0
> > C5-Trk3 0 0
> 0
> > 0
> > C6-Trk3 0 0
> 0
> > 0
> > C7-Trk4 0 0
> 0
> > 0
> > C8-Trk4 0 0
> 0
> > 0
> > D1 0 0
> 0
> > 0
> > D2 0 0
> 0
> > 0
> >
> > Actions-> Back Show details Reset
> Help
> >
> >
> > when sending a big file from node1 to node2
> >
> > Port Total Bytes Total Frames Errors Rx
>
> > Drops Tx
> > ------- ------------- -------------
> -------------
> > -------------
> > A1 0 0
> 0
> > 0
> > C1-Trk1 100,432,998 69,876
> 0
> > 0
> > C2-Trk1 2,707,873 35,263
> 0
> > 0
> > C3-Trk2 1,355,028 17,632
> 0
> > 0
> > C4-Trk2 101,785,843 87,507
> 0
> > 0
> > C5-Trk3 0 0
> 0
> > 0
> > C6-Trk3 0 0
> 0
> > 0
> > C7-Trk4 0 0
> 0
> > 0
> > C8-Trk4 0 0
> 0
> > 0
> > D1 0 0
> 0
> > 0
> > D2 0 0
> 0
> > 0
> >
> > Actions-> Back Show details Reset
> Help
> >
> > Reset port counters (affects current console
> session
> > only)
> >
> >
> >
> > Any ideas guys.. Some channel bonding is happening
> i
> > guess ; But why am i not getting 200 MBPs of
> speed.???
> >
> >
> > Abhishek
> > --- Martin Siegert <siegert at sfu.ca> wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 08:39:30AM -0700,
> abhishek
> > > Sinha wrote:
> > > > Hi All
> > > >
> > > > First thanks for that mail;
> > > > <offtopic> I sometimes get amazed at the time
> ppl
> > > take
> > > > to help other newbies, Amazing and encouraging
> > > > </offtopic>
> > > >
> > > > --- Martin Siegert <siegert at sfu.ca> wrote:
> > > > > Netperf usually tells you what throughput it
> > > > > achieved at the sending node
> > > > > and what throughput it achieved at the
> receiving
> > > > > node. Is that what you
> > > > > are showing here? The two numbers should be
> the
> > > same
> > > > > otherwise you have a
> > > > > problem (at least the must not be as vastly
> > > > > different as 191Mbps and 96Mbps).
> > > >
> > > > Do you think it could be that one side
> (receiving
> > > or
> > > > sending )is getting channel bonded and the
> other
> > > side
> > > > is not
> > >
> > > Actually, I was wondering about that. Your udp
> > > results seem to indicate
> > > that the sender uses two NICs whereas the
> receiver
> > > does not.
> > >
> > > Thus, it may be a good idea to check cables and
> > > NICs. Do the two NICs
> > > work without channel bonding, i.e., when you put
> > > them onto two different
> > > networks?
> > >
> > > Good luck,
> > > Martin
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th!
http://shopping.yahoo.com
More information about the Beowulf
mailing list