FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-09-2008, 10:47 PM
Timothy Selivanow
 
Default Interface bonding?

I'm try to bond a few interfaces together with the hopes of getting
increased throughput, and I'm using a cisco Catalyst 2900 as the switch.
I've tried using mode 0, 5, and 6 with nothing special on the switch,
and mode 4 with some ports "trunked" together (I have a feeling that the
"trunking" that the 2900 does is not 802.3ad, as it disabled the ports
it saw as redundant), yet xfer speeds always cap out at about 10MB/s.

Has any body accomplished bonding with increased throughput as the goal,
with or without (without might be preferable) doing something special on the switch (preferably the
afore-mentioned Catalyst 2900, as that is what I have to work with as a
non-sactioned side-project ?


--Tim
__________________________________________________ _
< When pleasure remains, does it remain a pleasure? >
---------------------------------------------------


/
( )
.( o ).

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 04-09-2008, 11:26 PM
"Joseph L. Casale"
 
Default Interface bonding?

>I'm try to bond a few interfaces together with the hopes of getting
>increased throughput, and I'm using a cisco Catalyst 2900 as the switch.
>I've tried using mode 0, 5, and 6 with nothing special on the switch,
>and mode 4 with some ports "trunked" together (I have a feeling that the
>"trunking" that the 2900 does is not 802.3ad, as it disabled the ports
>it saw as redundant), yet xfer speeds always cap out at about 10MB/s.
>
>Has any body accomplished bonding with increased throughput as the goal,
>with or without (without might be preferable) doing something special on the switch (preferably the
>afore-mentioned Catalyst 2900, as that is what I have to work with as a
>non-sactioned side-project ?
>
>
>--Tim

I just did this with an HP switch, it was obviously easier Have a look here:
http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/networking/bonding.txt

Some good info.

HTH,
jlc
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 04-09-2008, 11:43 PM
John
 
Default Interface bonding?

On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 15:47 -0700, Timothy Selivanow wrote:
> I'm try to bond a few interfaces together with the hopes of getting
> increased throughput, and I'm using a cisco Catalyst 2900 as the switch.
> I've tried using mode 0, 5, and 6 with nothing special on the switch,
> and mode 4 with some ports "trunked" together (I have a feeling that the
> "trunking" that the 2900 does is not 802.3ad, as it disabled the ports
> it saw as redundant), yet xfer speeds always cap out at about 10MB/s.
>
> Has any body accomplished bonding with increased throughput as the goal,
> with or without (without might be preferable) doing something special on the switch (preferably the
> afore-mentioned Catalyst 2900, as that is what I have to work with as a
> non-sactioned side-project ?
>

IEEE 802.1Q trunking Supported.
Cisco IOS Release 11.2(8)SA5
(Enterprise Edition Software)

Inter-Switch Link (ISL) trunking
Cisco IOS Release 11.2(8)SA4
(Enterprise Edition Software)

set fastether-options 802.3ad (((try that)))?

I have a Cisco Cert but that does not mean anything. Have not worked on
ciso equipment in over 4 years.
>
> --Tim
> __________________________________________________ _
> < When pleasure remains, does it remain a pleasure? >
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
> /
> ( )
> .( o ).
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
--
~/john

OpenPGP Sig:BA91F079

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 04-10-2008, 10:24 AM
"Michael Simpson"
 
Default Interface bonding?

On 4/9/08, Timothy Selivanow <timothy.selivanow@virtualxistenz.com> wrote:
> I'm try to bond a few interfaces together with the hopes of getting
> increased throughput, and I'm using a cisco Catalyst 2900 as the switch.
> I've tried using mode 0, 5, and 6 with nothing special on the switch,
> and mode 4 with some ports "trunked" together (I have a feeling that the
> "trunking" that the 2900 does is not 802.3ad, as it disabled the ports
> it saw as redundant), yet xfer speeds always cap out at about 10MB/s.
>
> Has any body accomplished bonding with increased throughput as the goal,
> with or without (without might be preferable) doing something special on the switch (preferably the
> afore-mentioned Catalyst 2900, as that is what I have to work with as a
> non-sactioned side-project ?
>
>
> --Tim
> __________________________________________________ _
> < When pleasure remains, does it remain a pleasure? >
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
> /
> ( )
> .( o ).
>
Hi there

As another person with cisco certs that aren't being used i wondered
about the port being switched off which sounds like a spanning-tree
issue.

/me dredging up heavily repressed stuff from the BCMSN

Certainly the 2900 will support 802.3ad or LACP natively.

i found this which may be of use

<http://wiki.oracle.com/page/Cisco+Systems+IOS-based+switches-+interface+bonding+and+trunking?t=anon>

mike
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 04-11-2008, 05:17 PM
Timothy Selivanow
 
Default Interface bonding?

On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 11:24 +0100, Michael Simpson wrote:
> Certainly the 2900 will support 802.3ad or LACP natively.
>
> i found this which may be of use
>
> <http://wiki.oracle.com/page/Cisco+Systems+IOS-based+switches-+interface+bonding+and+trunking?t=anon>

So, as it turns out, it's a 2900XL, which does not support 802.3ad or
LACP at all, just a proprietary port channeling for switch interconnect
as far as I can tell.

I suppose that leaves me with just using pure software (for now, I have
an 8 port Intel Pro 100 at home that I'll look at...), but I'm unable to
get the increased throughput using mode=0. I did notice, however, while
I was on the switch console it kept complaining about the interfaces
flapping and re-learning addresses. My network guy here at work said
that it was bad and either the switch or the bond(s) is misconfigured
somewhere. Any hints as to where and or what kinds of things I should
be looking at?


--Tim
__________________________________________________ ____
/ The truth is what is; what should be is a dirty lie.
-- Lenny Bruce /
------------------------------------------------------


/
( )
.( o ).

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 04-11-2008, 05:43 PM
Guy Boisvert
 
Default Interface bonding?

Timothy Selivanow wrote:

On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 11:24 +0100, Michael Simpson wrote:

Certainly the 2900 will support 802.3ad or LACP natively.

i found this which may be of use

<http://wiki.oracle.com/page/Cisco+Systems+IOS-based+switches-+interface+bonding+and+trunking?t=anon>


So, as it turns out, it's a 2900XL, which does not support 802.3ad or
LACP at all, just a proprietary port channeling for switch interconnect
as far as I can tell.

I suppose that leaves me with just using pure software (for now, I have
an 8 port Intel Pro 100 at home that I'll look at...), but I'm unable to
get the increased throughput using mode=0. I did notice, however, while
I was on the switch console it kept complaining about the interfaces
flapping and re-learning addresses. My network guy here at work said
that it was bad and either the switch or the bond(s) is misconfigured
somewhere. Any hints as to where and or what kinds of things I should
be looking at?


--Tim


Hi!

LACP is a part of 802.3ad.

Cisco 2900XL supports 802.1Q, ISL, EtherChannel, LACP, etc. Depending
on the age of the switch and the version and category of IOS used, the
LACP support may be there. Cisco has many IOS versions for the hardware
you have.


http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/620/1.html


As for protocols support, it's hard to beat Cisco.


You may have a look at:

http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/140.pdf
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps607/products_configuration_example09186a0080094789.sht ml



Hope this helped!


Guy Boisvert, ing.
IngTegration inc.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 04-11-2008, 06:26 PM
John
 
Default Interface bonding?

On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 13:43 -0400, Guy Boisvert wrote:
> Timothy Selivanow wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 11:24 +0100, Michael Simpson wrote:
> >> Certainly the 2900 will support 802.3ad or LACP natively.
> >>
> >> i found this which may be of use
> >>
> >> <http://wiki.oracle.com/page/Cisco+Systems+IOS-based+switches-+interface+bonding+and+trunking?t=anon>
> >
> > So, as it turns out, it's a 2900XL, which does not support 802.3ad or
> > LACP at all, just a proprietary port channeling for switch interconnect
> > as far as I can tell.
> >
> > I suppose that leaves me with just using pure software (for now, I have
> > an 8 port Intel Pro 100 at home that I'll look at...), but I'm unable to
> > get the increased throughput using mode=0. I did notice, however, while
> > I was on the switch console it kept complaining about the interfaces
> > flapping and re-learning addresses. My network guy here at work said
> > that it was bad and either the switch or the bond(s) is misconfigured
> > somewhere. Any hints as to where and or what kinds of things I should
> > be looking at?
> >
> >
> > --Tim
>
> Hi!
>
> LACP is a part of 802.3ad.
>
> Cisco 2900XL supports 802.1Q, ISL, EtherChannel, LACP, etc. Depending
> on the age of the switch and the version and category of IOS used, the
> LACP support may be there. Cisco has many IOS versions for the hardware
> you have.

And did you even try the command I give you? In the previous thread
--->
Some of those are known to run IOS 10 - 12 The older 2900s don't support
it from about 7 -8 years ago. Updates the IOS? If I paid a couple grand
for a core switch i'd be calling Cisco!

http://wiki.oracle.com/page/Cisco+Systems+IOS-based+switches-+interface
+bonding+and+trunking?t=anon> This seems like relevant info also....

>
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/620/1.html
>
>
> As for protocols support, it's hard to beat Cisco.
>
>
> You may have a look at:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/140.pdf
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps607/products_configuration_example09186a0080094789.sht ml
>
>
>
> Hope this helped!
>
>
> Guy Boisvert, ing.
> IngTegration inc.
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
--
~/john

OpenPGP Sig:BA91F079

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 04-11-2008, 06:46 PM
Timothy Selivanow
 
Default Interface bonding?

On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 13:43 -0400, Guy Boisvert wrote:

> You may have a look at:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/140.pdf
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps607/products_configuration_example09186a0080094789.sht ml
>

I've looked at both of these documents already. In the PDF, on page 3,
it says that the 2900XL does not support LACP nor PAgP (any IOS
version). In all of the configuration examples that I've seen (none of
them use a 2900XL in the example, or I'm dense which is completely
plausible), none of that specific syntax applies (command unknown,
etc...). The switch is using an old version of IOS, so I'll look into
an upgrade path, but I'd rather move onto my project than mess with
cisco stuff



--Tim
__________________________________________________ _______________________
/ The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an 8.
-- R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?] /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


/
( )
.( o ).

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 04-11-2008, 06:49 PM
Timothy Selivanow
 
Default Interface bonding?

On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote:
> If I paid a couple grand for a core switch i'd be calling Cisco!
>

They're not core switches, they're just the catalyst 2900XL which is a
small 24 port switch. We've got stacks of these sitting unused, so I
doubt they're too expensive/valuable.


--Tim
__________________________________________________ ______
< God isn't dead, he just couldn't find a parking place. >
--------------------------------------------------------


/
( )
.( o ).

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 04-11-2008, 07:08 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Interface bonding?

Timothy Selivanow wrote:

On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:26 -0400, John wrote:

If I paid a couple grand for a core switch i'd be calling Cisco!



They're not core switches, they're just the catalyst 2900XL which is a
small 24 port switch. We've got stacks of these sitting unused, so I
doubt they're too expensive/valuable.



They were expensive once. Now they are end-of-life'd and you can't get
a support contract or a new IOS for them.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:14 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org