Link Aggregation ... almost there!

Hi all
After struggling with Link Aggregation on Mac OS X Server to Extreme X450 switches we are almost there. We've now managed to get a live working link where the Ethernet 1 and 2 arew green and the Bond0 shows both links as active, and finally the Bond0 interface picks up a DHCP address.
So that's great, but no Network connection which is weird because it got an IP address.
Do we have to route the traffic over one of the other interfaces or something?
Any suggestions at all?
Cheers
C

Camelot wrote:
The first, or at least - most obvious, problem is that you have IP addresses assigned to each of en0 and en1.
This should not be the case. Only the bond0 network should have an IP address assigned.
The other interfaces should not be configured at all. That's almost certainly the issue since your machine has three IP addresses in the same subnet - one on each of en0, en1 and bond0. It's no wonder things are confused
Thanks that now works a treat!
Was hoping you could help on another set of ports again being configured for Link Aggregation. We have tried to set it up in exactly the same way but again its not working. The ifconfig returns back the following:
lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 16384
inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000
inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128
gif0: flags=8010<POINTOPOINT,MULTICAST> mtu 1280
stf0: flags=0 mtu 1280
en0: flags=8863<UP,BROADCAST,SMART,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet6 fe80::219:e3ff:fee7:5706%en0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x4
inet 169.254.102.66 netmask 0xffff0000 broadcast 169.254.255.255
ether 00:19:e3:e7:57:07
media: autoselect (1000baseT <full-duplex,flow-control>) status: active
supported media: autoselect 10baseT/UTP <half-duplex> 10baseT/UTP <full-duplex> 10baseT/UTP <full-duplex,hw-loopback> 10baseT/UTP <full-duplex,flow-control> 100baseTX <half-duplex> 100baseTX <full-duplex> 100baseTX <full-duplex,hw-loopback> 100baseTX <full-duplex,flow-control> 1000baseT <full-duplex> 1000baseT <full-duplex,hw-loopback> 1000baseT <full-duplex,flow-control>
en1: flags=8863<UP,BROADCAST,SMART,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet6 fe80::219:e3ff:fee7:5707%en1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x5
inet 169.254.102.66 netmask 0xffff0000 broadcast 169.254.255.255
ether 00:19:e3:e7:57:07
media: autoselect (1000baseT <full-duplex,flow-control>) status: active
supported media: autoselect 10baseT/UTP <half-duplex> 10baseT/UTP <full-duplex> 10baseT/UTP <full-duplex,hw-loopback> 10baseT/UTP <full-duplex,flow-control> 100baseTX <half-duplex> 100baseTX <full-duplex> 100baseTX <full-duplex,hw-loopback> 100baseTX <full-duplex,flow-control> 1000baseT <full-duplex> 1000baseT <full-duplex,hw-loopback> 1000baseT <full-duplex,flow-control>
fw0: flags=8822<BROADCAST,SMART,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 2030
lladdr 00:1b:63:ff:fe:6e:6c:8a
media: autoselect <full-duplex> status: inactive
supported media: autoselect <full-duplex>
bond0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
ether 00:19:e3:e7:57:07
media: autoselect status: inactive
supported media: autoselect
bond interfaces: en1 en0
When I compared this to the working Link Aggregation ifconfig output I noticed this one has the line "media: autoselect status: inactive" as appose to active. Could this be the cause and how do I rectify it?
Thanks

Similar Messages

Link Aggregation, revisited again

I did all this research to find out how LACP Link Aggregation actually functions in OS X Server, and found many varying opinions out there (there is precious little in OS X documentation, it says essentially set it up and you are good to go:). It seems there is a disagreement on whether OS X (properly configured with LACP switch) will actually spread out traffic dynamically, or whether it only spreads out traffic when one becomes saturated.
So I did a test, configured en0 and en1 as a link aggregate called Fat Pipe, and both show green (Cisco switch with LACP for those ports). However, no matter how many concurrent read/writes to different servers, I can't confirm that there is any improvement at all, which leads me to believe that 'true' load balancing is not happening.
Also, I have read 2 differing opinions on how the bonded NICs should appear in Network prefs: configured as "Off", or as DHCP with self-assigned 169.x.x.x address.
Anyone with info, would be much appreciated. At this point I'm almost inclined to just give each NIC their own IP, and just manually assign some users to connect with one IP, and some with the other...doesn't seem as efficient as aggregation though.
Thanks

I did all this research to find out how LACP Link Aggregation actually functions in OS X Server, and found many varying opinions out there
There's no disagreement as far as I'm aware
It's a function of link aggregation (which is an IEEE standard) and therefore not subject to the whims of Apple's implementation.
The low-down is that the links are both used and specifically which link is used is based on the MAC address of the source and destination hosts.
Moreover, there is no concept of link saturation or failover when one is full - it's entirely possible for one to to be saturated and all the other links to be completely idle if that's the way the MAC addresses run.
A simplified view of the algorithm makes it easy to understand - for a 2-link trunk using en0 and en1, the system looks at the MAC addresses of the source and destination hosts. If they're both odd it uses en0, if they're both even, it uses en0, if they're different (one is odd and one is even) then it uses en1. Therefore, it's entirely possible that all traffic will use one link if all the MAC addresses are odd (or even).
The upshot is that you will never exceed the single link speed (e.g. 1gbps if using 1gbps links) to any single host on the network, so the transfer rates between two devices will be capped at that. However, if a second host initiates a connection, and if that second host's MAC address causes its traffic to transmit over the other link, the the second host's transfers won't be impacted by the first host's transfer.
I can't confirm that there is any improvement at all, which leads me to believe that 'true' load balancing is not happening.
In the real world, it's unlikely that you'll get a single host pumping 1gbps of traffic into the network, so you only really see the effect when you have multiple hosts all talking at the same time. A reasonable test would be to time simultaneous transfers to/from the server, then pull one of the links and see if things slow down.
Also, I have read 2 differing opinions on how the bonded NICs should appear in Network prefs: configured as "Off", or as DHCP with self-assigned 169.x.x.x address.
The links don't appear at all in any of my servers running with trunks. The only interface I see is the trunk.
If I use ifconfig in the terminal I see the underlying links as 'active', but they don't have any IP address assigned to them.

X Serve and link aggregation - how to get more speed

Based on the thread http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1583184
is there any news with Snow Leopard Server and bonding 2 or 4 nics on an XServe to get a true load balancing? Can you recommend specific ethernet switches?
Thanks
Kostas

Why do you think Snow Leopard makes any difference?
Link Aggregation is an IEEE standard. Apple can't arbitrarily change their implementation of it.
As for switches, I've used it successfully on a variety of HP, Cisco and Foundry switches, although since it's a standard protocol almost any switch should work.

How to set up Link Aggregation on Windows 7 ?

I am going to buy a new Switcher that is LACP (Link Aggregation Control Protocol) supported so I can get a little bit better internet by combining my two ethernet ports on my MacPro (Mid 2012) where i have Windows 7 Ultimate installed as well as Mac OSx. On Mac OSx it is easy to set up Link Aggregation takes only 30 sec by going to Manage Virtual Interfaces and click round (for doing this you need a Link Aggregation supported router or switcher), but on Windows it seems to be a little bit harder after looking around for a while now. Is there anyone here who knows how to do it or know if its possible to set up Link Aggregation on Windows 7 ?
I'll be thankful for any help i can get

hehe I thought over that too
But since I dont got a windows forum account I thought of asking here fisrst

Link aggregation

Hello,
I have a new Mac Pro specifically dedicated as a security camera server and am wondering if I should implement the use of two Ethernet ports and/or link aggregation. Here is the rest of the story...
My Mac Pro 3.06 GHz 12-core Intel Xeon computer corrdinates twelve network megapixel sercurity cameras. The network configuration now that the Mac Pro is simply linked into the only network that everything else in my home is via one main 10/100/1000 switch. This same network also hosts four other wired Macs, two HDMI-Cat6-HDMI channels, and a variety of other wired/wireless items that need Internet access. A brief test shows that my new Mac Pro does the job just fine under this plan. Isn't that what a network switch is supposed to do; juggle multiple data streams without them colliding or interfearing with one another? Regardless, I haven't tried to take any diagnostic readings or done any comparisons. I have further found little information from Apple on the use of two Ethernet ports.
So, any suggestions here? Maybe it would be good to have all of my cameras on one Network with the Mac Pro, since it is the one that coordinates all the video data. However, downstream access to all of that data via the main household Network and the Internet would be resticted. This is unless I can use both Networks at the same time. Like I said, I am finding little information to even start designing a Network with these two Enetrnet ports.
More microchips than sense,
Dr. Z.

Link Aggregation uses a slightly different protocol. It is different enough that the Mac will only commit both its Ethernet ports when the equipment you are connecting to explicitly supports Link Aggregation Protocol. (certain high-end Switches do this, but most consumer equipment does not.)
The Mac can use such an Aggregated link once established, but it does not do load-balancing unless there are multiple virtual connections. If you have only one data stream, it will be routed over one side of the aggregate link and will not benefit from having the other side present unless other connections to other places were using the same aggregate link..
So I think that if you are taking advantage of Gigabit Ethernet, you are doing fine. Link Aggregation is available, but it is really solving a problem you do not have in a way that does not benefit you.
Have you checked the actual speed in Network Utility to make sure you really are connecting at Gigabit speeds?
I some times set these up with manual speed so that they connect quickly at the speed I specify (with flow control) instead of auto-speed.

Link Aggregation: LGS318P Switch and LRT214 Router

The manual for my LGS318P is a little confusing (perhaps because I'm relatively new at more advanced features of networking).
I have an LRT214 router that I'm now routing all traffic through my LGS318P in the basement. From there it goes to multiple locations in the house, WAP's, etc. Currently, port 17 of the LGS318P connects to LAN1 of my LRT214 router. LAN2-4 are unused.
I would like to create a link aggregation for ports 17 and 18 to LAN1 and LAN2 of my router for both redundancy as well as possible speed improvement.
What is the best way to do this? Do I simply edit LAG1, place GE17 and GE18 as LAG port members, and select LACP to enable? Will that automatically set things up?
I don't want to do this then lose connectivity to my switch to reverse things.
Also, how many ports can be aggregated? Can I use 4 ports on the switch to the 4 LAN ports on the router?
What about the flow control option? Should that be disabled (default setting), enabled, or auto?
Thanks for all the help anyone can provide!

I also found something from the Linksys website for your consumption. I provides additional information about the rules of setting up LAC. The link is located at:
http://kb.linksys.com/Linksys/ukp.aspx?vw=1&docid=986c6706bc7649b686850c5a26855a8f_15746.xml&pid=80&...
I hope it helps.

Dual wireless/ Load Balancing/ Link Aggregation

Hi all,
I've been reading up on this topic all day, with multiple Google and Apple searches, but haven't found the exact answer to this query. There was another post on this forum http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1660762 which was vaguely similar.
Basically I'm looking to experiment with combining 2 wireless connections, and therefore 2 seperate internet connections into one Mac.
I have seen suggestions of using a couple of wireless -> ethernet bridges, since Leopard supports Link Aggregation of ethernet devices. But the first question I have is: since I use a 3rd party wireless adaptor (Netgear wg111v3 USB dongle), it already shows up in Network Preferences as an Ethernet port. Leopard treats it as an actual ethernet device, hence is oblivious to the fact it is a wireless adaptor. Since Leopard thinks it's an ethernet port, could I use a second wireless dongle and then use Link Aggregation on them both?
Additionally, if that idea were to work, would it then be possible to connect each wireless adaptor to a seperate wireless network, or would they both have to connect to the same access point?
My DSL connection is roughly 512k on a good day, but I find this bandwidth to be choked when someone else at home is streaming videos etc. So in principle my idea was to have one connection using the regular DSL line as usual, plus connect the secondary wireless to my friend's wireless over the road when needed (and yes he's already agreed to my use since he rarely accesses the net). Therefore, giving a total theoretical bandwidth of 512k x2.
Since I aim for a load-balancing idea (spreading traffic over both connections), the main issue I can forsee is that this Mac will have problems routing traffic with both IPs since I read somewhere else that DNS problems might occur.It seems relatively easy to use Terminal to add a default route for specific destinations (e.g. all traffic to apple.com out of one interface, all traffic to yahoo.com out the other). However, I wondered if web traffic could be forwarded out one connection, whilst email traffic goes through the other. Alternatively, it would be great if web traffic could be "halved" and sent out both wireless connections simultaneously, though I don't think there's an easy way to do this (it would just be a nice feature if possible).
Your thoughts and advice on the matter would be much appreciated, and I'm going to continue experimenting with various ideas and see what I come up with.

Hi all,
I've been reading up on this topic all day, with multiple Google and Apple searches, but haven't found the exact answer to this query. There was another post on this forum http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1660762 which was vaguely similar.
Basically I'm looking to experiment with combining 2 wireless connections, and therefore 2 seperate internet connections into one Mac.
I have seen suggestions of using a couple of wireless -> ethernet bridges, since Leopard supports Link Aggregation of ethernet devices. But the first question I have is: since I use a 3rd party wireless adaptor (Netgear wg111v3 USB dongle), it already shows up in Network Preferences as an Ethernet port. Leopard treats it as an actual ethernet device, hence is oblivious to the fact it is a wireless adaptor. Since Leopard thinks it's an ethernet port, could I use a second wireless dongle and then use Link Aggregation on them both?
Additionally, if that idea were to work, would it then be possible to connect each wireless adaptor to a seperate wireless network, or would they both have to connect to the same access point?
My DSL connection is roughly 512k on a good day, but I find this bandwidth to be choked when someone else at home is streaming videos etc. So in principle my idea was to have one connection using the regular DSL line as usual, plus connect the secondary wireless to my friend's wireless over the road when needed (and yes he's already agreed to my use since he rarely accesses the net). Therefore, giving a total theoretical bandwidth of 512k x2.
Since I aim for a load-balancing idea (spreading traffic over both connections), the main issue I can forsee is that this Mac will have problems routing traffic with both IPs since I read somewhere else that DNS problems might occur.It seems relatively easy to use Terminal to add a default route for specific destinations (e.g. all traffic to apple.com out of one interface, all traffic to yahoo.com out the other). However, I wondered if web traffic could be forwarded out one connection, whilst email traffic goes through the other. Alternatively, it would be great if web traffic could be "halved" and sent out both wireless connections simultaneously, though I don't think there's an easy way to do this (it would just be a nice feature if possible).
Your thoughts and advice on the matter would be much appreciated, and I'm going to continue experimenting with various ideas and see what I come up with.

Best Switch to use for Link Aggregation

Looking to buy a new switch and was hoping that someone is already doing link aggregation on a current switch. Looking for 48 ports, I have a lot of Xserves.
What model have you had the best luck with? THX

Switches are like so many other things in life - you get what you pay for.
Sometimes you can pay less and get enough (i.e. it works well enough)
Sometimes you can pay less and not know what you're missing (you don't know what some of those advanced features are anyway, even though they could be useful)
Sometimes you pay more and get features you don't need/want/understand
Sometimes you find just the right option.
Start off by determining the importance to your business. If the switch blows out and all your servers go dark, how much will that cost you if it takes an hour to get it back up? 4 hours? a minute?
Look also at how much traffic you're pushing through your network. If you just need ports but aren't pushing many packets then a cheaper switch may suffice, but if you need every port to run at full line rate with no packet drops then you need something bigger.
Do you need the switch to just pass traffic, or do you want statistics (e.g. SNMP, RMON, etc.) so you can track which ports are busiest?
Then, of course, there's a budget. It could be $100. It could be $10,000. Your options are limited at $100, but $10K will cover a lot of options.
While you're doing this, consider expansion room. Are you likely to need more ports soon? Are 48 ports enough? Maybe a chassis-based switch that's expandable would be a better option.
At the high end you might consider anything from Cisco. Their Catalyst range of switches are the workhorses of many networks. They also come with a matching price tag.
Other options worth considering at the higher end would be Force 10's. Force 10 is known for their 10-gigabit network equipment, but their S Series switches are a powerful play.
Then there's Juniper's EX range. Juniper are known more for their routing platform (I guarantee most of your internet traffic goes through a Juniper router at some point), but their switches are a natural progression.
Coming down the line a little, look at Brocade's FastIron switches. Formerly Foundry Networks (before they got bought out), I" ve used (and continue to use) their switches in my network. If all those are above your price bracket then HP ProCurve switches are worth a look.
All of the above still may do more than you need, though. If all you really, really want is link aggregation and don't care about the rest then I'd probably go for a NetGear over the other lower-end players such as D-Link or LinkSys (even though LinkSys is now owned by Cisco).

Link aggregated between NAS and a switch: the Mac as a very slow access...

Hello,
in my Office we're working with Macs and PCs and all the data is on a NAS.
Here is our configuration:
NAS <-link1->Switch<-Link2->Macs or PC.
Macs are connected with AFP protocol (because SMB is very slow).
We want to use Link Aggregation between the NAS and the switch (with 802.3ad procotol) but when we do that all the Macs have a very slow access to the NAS. But all is OK with the PCs.
What can we do? Is there a problem with macOS X and link aggregation?
Thank you for your help.
Nicolas

Sorry, not sure what the question is exactly.
You must have an Xserve, or Ethernet cards capable of Jumbo Frames for one, I assume the Switch & NAS are capable?
Possible clues...
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?path=ServerAdmin/10.4/en/c3ha3.html
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1715388&tstart=0
http://www.macnn.com/articles/04/06/21/link.aggregation.for.macs/
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30556/53/
http://www.afp548.com/forum/viewtopic.php?showtopic=8309

Mac Pro - Link Aggregation Group

Hi community,
does any now know in what mode the virtual interface feature LAG (Link Aggregation Group) on a MacPro operates?
The LACP modes are: On / Active / Passive / Off
And what driver mode is used?
The driver modes are: Round-robin / Active-backup / XOR (balance-xor) / Broadcast / Adaptive transmit load balancing (balance-tlb) / Adaptive load balancing (balance-alb)
There is nothing to ajust.
Kind regards,
Nils

Link Aggregation only works when the device at the other end of the Links understands the commands of Link Aggregation Protocol. These tend to be Industrial-Strength Switches and Routers, not the affordable ones most Homeowners buy.
The constraints of the other device, listed in its manual, will determine the best choices.
Mac OS X 10.6 Server Admin: Setting Up Link Aggregation in Mac OS X Server
OS X Mountain Lion: Combine Ethernet ports

TS3408 I keep on getting this error message on my Yahoo and Safari You're almost there, but your web browser doesn't support the newest version of Yahoo! Mail

I keep on getting this error message on my Yahoo and Safari all of a sudden;
You're almost there, but your web browser doesn’t support the newest version of Yahoo! Mail
The links it gives to upgrade don't work !
I have Safari Version 5.1.7 the latest for Snow Leapord. I get the same error message on Firefox and Google Crome aI even dowmloaded another Brower for Mac still got he same error message ! I have used the Disk Utility to rparir files and rest Safari. I have deleated Firefox then downloaded a fresh version, still the same error messages ! Please help it's driving me nutts.

Perky --
You do not need any "Cleaner" app for Macs. I would not be at all surprised if that didn't actually damage your Mac, especially if it were MacDefender. Applejack is OK, but I'm not sure what it erased. Do you know?
You also don't need any Virus Barrier. That could also mess things up.
The fact that all of your browsers are now messed up indicates that it is not a Safari problem, but more system-wide.
Did you check here?
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/yahoomail/technical/

I keep on getting this error message on my Yahoo mail. You're almost there, but your web browser doesn't support the newest version of Yahoo! Mail

I keep on getting this error message on my Yahoo mail all of a sudden;
You're almost there, but your web browser doesn’t support the newest version of Yahoo! Mail
The links it gives to upgrade are blocked
I have latest version of FireFox 19 and Snow Leopard. I get the same error message on Safari and Google Crome aI even downloaded another Browser for Mac still got he same error message ! I have used the Disk Utility to repair files and rest Safari. I have deleted Firefox then downloaded a fresh version, still the same error messages ! Please help it's driving me nuts.

You can check for problems caused by a possibly corrupted user agent.
See:
*https://support.mozilla.org/kb/Finding+your+Firefox+version
*https://support.mozilla.org/kb/websites-say-firefox-outdated-or-incompatible
*http://kb.mozillazine.org/Resetting_your_useragent_string_to_its_compiled-in_default

Link aggregation - performance overhead?

Does anybody know if Solaris link aggregation incurs any performance degredation compared with non-redundant network connections?
We've recently upgraded a client system and have enabled link aggregation to bind two interfaces (bge) to a logical aggregated interface.
Apart from the server hardware upgrade, which brought a change from ce to bge interfaces, this is the only other significant network change.
On this heavily used system, database network performance has degraded significantly, and being the only significant network change I'm wondering whether link aggregation could be a cause.
Reading through Sunsolve articles and man pages, there doesn't appear to be anything categorically stating aggregation imposes a cost overhead.
However, I'd be interested to hear from others if they've experienced this.
For what it's worth, this is Solaris 10 10/09 on an Ultrasparc VII.

So many considerations when you talk about performance: what system hardware in use? how many interfaces? is this a CoolThreads "T" server (where single threaded programs don't run as well as multi-threaded); what do you mean by "database network performance has degraded"; does the DB need to be tuned or adjusted for this? If using add-on cards, are they in the most optimal slot (some platforms) and don't go over the recommended # of interface boards supported by the system? different storage array or config for you DB?
when cases like these come in, there typically is a discussion that needs to take place around those questions as well as what/when/where and expectations like those described here: http://blogs.sun.com/hippy/entry/what_s_the_answer_to
also understand that link aggregation does not necessarily mean that you will see a balancing of the load evenly b/t 2 or more aggregated interfaces. The default policy is "L4" which decides the outbound interface by TCP and UDP info if found in the packet, not by simple source/destination or mac address hashing, although you can set those with -P if you want. You can also set multiple policies. (-P L2,L3).
So it /could/ be related to the aggregation change you made, but you also upgraded this DB machine from some other system, so there ARE other differences. Were you using link aggregation on the previous system or Sun Trunking? What type of CPU was that other system?
that's all I can think of, but hopefully you get the idea.

Link Aggregation - computer to switch-pair

Hi all,
According to the Mac OS X Server documentation (http://images.apple.com/server/macosx/docs/AdvancedServer_Adminv10.6.pdf, page 165), it is possible to create a "Computer to switch-pair" scenario, to provide a redundant network connection for an Xserve running OS X Server 10.5 or 10.6.
What I would like to set up, is for an Xserve to connect to 2 different switches (using link aggregation as described in the manual), so that if a switch fails, the Xserve retains connectivity (using the same IP address).
Has anyone managed to do this in reality? If so, would you mind telling me how it is configured? Info on how to set this up is non-existent...even a local Apple engineer was unable to help.
If it helps, I'm connecting my Xserves to either: (a) a pair of HP ProCurve 2810-24G switches, or (b) HP ProCurve 8200zl and 5400zl switch
Thanks in advance for any assistance.
Cheers,
Dave.

Link aggregation can give you redundancy and greater bandwidth by allowing you to combine Ethernet ports, but the ports must be connected to the same switch. I don't believe there is a way to connect to two different switches using the same IP as technically that would create a loop, which would bring the connection on your Mac to a halt, if not slow down the entire switch.
Switch failure isn't super-common, at least not in my experience, and you're using good switches to begin with. I would create a link if you need more bandwidth to the switch for, say, a fileserver but otherwise, I wouldn't worry about it.
If you do decide to try link aggregating, you need to do two things:
In OS X under Network Prefs go to > (Gear Icon) Manage Virtual Interfaces > New Link Aggregate... and combine your ports there. In the new Network panel created for the new ethernet bond, enter your TCP/IP settings.
In the switch, you need to enable LACP (Link Aggregation Control Protocol) for each port you want to include in the link aggregation. This is usually just a checkbox in the main ports page of the switch admin interface. Many switches don't support link aggregation, so if you can't find it easily, make sure your switch actually includes it.
JM

Link aggregation query

Hi,
I've recently taken over a network which has got 4 Linksys switches - 3 * SRW2048 and 1 * SRW2024
One of the SRW2048 devices has 2 LAGs setup (of 4 ports each) connecting to the other 2 SRW2048s (both with a single LAG). So far, so good.
However, between the 'main' SRW2048 and the SRW2024 there are 4 ethernet cables, but no Link Aggregation is set up. Everything seems to be working OK, but I'm wondering if this is this an 'OK setup'? If so, where does it rate in performance terms between having just one connecting cable, and having all 4 with Link Aggregation?
Thanks for any help
Michael

Hi Michael,
It could be that spanning tree is blocking three of those active links.
Might i suggest you save the configurations to your PC, so they can be restored, if needed.
I think it's a great idea to add the four switch ports to a new Link Aggregation (LAG) group on each switch.
Make sure, on both switches that you click 'save settings'.
LAG provides link redundancy and load sharing between the switches, so i persoanally love the idea of using Link Aggregation (LAG)
regards Dave

Link Aggregation ... almost there!

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for