Re: Channel bonding.

From: Dean Strik (dean_at_stack.nl)
Date: 04/22/05

  • Next message: Robert Watson: "Re: Memory allocation performance/statistics patches"
    Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 18:33:40 +0200
    To: Sean <seancody@gmail.com>
    
    

    Sean wrote:
    > I've been experimenting with the idea of doing channel bonding as a
    > means of improving the performance of some heavily used file servers.
    > Currently I am using a single Intel 1000MT interface on each file
    > server and it has rather lack luster performance.
    >
    > I've set two ports of my switch to 'shared' (an Extreme
    > BlackDiamond 6800) and am using an Intel 1000MT Dual Port for
    > the bonding interfaces.
    >
    > The performance increase with I see is marginally better than
    > just the one interface (70MB/s [bonded] vs 60MB/s [single]) which
    > is slightly disappointing. I am using ifstat and iostat (for disk
    > throughput, 30MB/s on a 3ware 7500-12 yet again disappointing) to
    > monitor and a variant of tcpblast to generate traffic. I'm using
    > 4 other machines (on the same blade on the switch) to generate the
    > traffice to the bonded interface all are similar hardware with
    > varrying versions of FreeBSD. In order to get the numbers as high
    > as I have I've enabled polling (some stability issues being
    > used under SMP).

    If I understand you correctly, you are not doing any load sharing from
    the FreeBSD box to the BD6800, right?

    Also, it's likely the BD6800 uses the lsb of the source-mac xor
    dest-mac. If you have four clients only, a marginal increase in
    performance could well be because the src^dst often returns the same
    value (e.g. with 3 out of 4 clients having an even MAC, and 1 out of 4
    an odd MAC). Try making this 50/50 by changing a MAC address of the
    client using 'ifconfig ether'.

    -- 
    Dean C. Strik             Eindhoven University of Technology
    dean@stack.nl  |  dean@ipnet6.org  |  http://www.ipnet6.org/
    "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli
    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
    

  • Next message: Robert Watson: "Re: Memory allocation performance/statistics patches"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Channel bonding.
      ... > I've been experimenting with the idea of doing channel bonding as a ... > means of improving the performance of some heavily used file servers. ... > Currently I am using a single Intel 1000MT interface on each file ... an odd MAC). ...
      (freebsd-performance)
    • Re: hostname.hme1
      ... as long as you don't need that interface to reach naming ... services, file servers, etc. etc. etc. ... value or removing the file. ...
      (comp.unix.solaris)
    • Re: hostname.hme1
      ... as long as you don't need that interface to reach naming ... services, file servers, etc. etc. etc. ... value or removing the file. ...
      (comp.sys.sun.admin)