Link aggregation must require switch support lacp ,does it?

Can I　use the policy L4 ?
I use the dladm show-aggr -s -i 4 to test the network bandwidth.and use the iometer to give it stress.
but the result is not very good .the aggr1 bandwidth is the same with a single e1000g card.
root@opensolaris:~# dladm show-aggr
LINK POLICY ADDRPOLICY LACPACTIVITY LACPTIMER FLAGS
aggr1 L4 auto off short -----
root@opensolaris:~# dladm show-aggr -s -i 4
LINK PORT IPACKETS RBYTES OPACKETS OBYTES IPKTDIST OPKTDIST
aggr1 -- 101717260 125773579513 207642925 187141265486 -- --
-- e1000g0 4055 1026873 3335 747493 0.0 0.0
-- e1000g1 101713205 125772552640 207639590 187140517993 100.0 100.0
aggr1 -- 165658 201296250 369180 113417467 -- --
-- e1000g0 0 0 3 590 0.0 0.0
-- e1000g1 165658 201296250 369177 113416877 100.0 100.0
aggr1 -- 161590 186946394 375078 117261414 -- --
-- e1000g0 1 1518 3 502 0.0 0.0
-- e1000g1 161589 186944876 375075 117260912 100.0 100.0
aggr1 -- 111482 125969868 257906 80692494 -- --
-- e1000g0 12 10284 3 502 0.0 0.0
-- e1000g1 111470 125959584 257903 80691992 100.0 100.0

I tried two clients with IOMeter , and change the policy from L4 to L3,L4 .It looks very nice.The read performance is good .
But the write(8k/32 in IOmeter) performance did not increase,the bandwidth still is the same with a single e1000g card . one client is 50 Mb/s the other is only 60Mb/s too. If it run correct it both should be over 90Mb/s .
what's the matter? I would hope that two streams will go faster, though.
root@opensolaris:~# dladm show-aggr
LINK POLICY ADDRPOLICY LACPACTIVITY LACPTIMER FLAGS
aggr1 L3,L4 auto off short -----
root@opensolaris:~# dladm show-aggr -s -i 4
LINK PORT IPACKETS RBYTES OPACKETS OBYTES IPKTDIST OPKTDIST
aggr1 -- 178311 211224084 421066 481581366 -- --
-- e1000g0 148504 174342924 323589 461207855 83.3 76.8
-- e1000g1 29807 36881160 97477 20373511 16.7 23.2
aggr1 -- 152755 180057562 331059 370303397 -- --
-- e1000g0 113624 128032580 249968 353636849 74.4 75.5
-- e1000g1 39131 52024982 81091 16666548 25.6 24.5

Similar Messages

Link Aggregation to 2 switches for Failover

I know this subject has been commented on in the past but I'm looking for fresh opinions.
Here is my scenario:
5 intel xserve 10.6.4 with 4 nics (2 onboard 2 PCI)
Our network switches support LACP but only for ports on that switch, we can not split our bonded nics to two switches. (Our switches do not support meshing)
I'm interested in failover more than throughput.
By setting the bondmode to static the failover works but we run the risk of overloading the switch since the MAC address of the bonded nics constantly hops between ports on the switch. (mac-flap)
If I bind 2 interfaces to a switch and 2 to another I now have 2 different IP addresses and although I eliminate the switch as a single point of failure I now have a DNS issue.
Any ideas would be appreciated.

By setting the bondmode to static the failover works but we run the risk of overloading the switch since the MAC address of the bonded nics constantly hops between ports on the switch. (mac-flap)
You really, really don't want to do this. Most switches force a pause (even if only for a few milliseconds) whenever a MAC flaps like this. That will wreak havoc on sustained throughput (e.g. when downloading files, for example). Don't go there.
If I bind 2 interfaces to a switch and 2 to another I now have 2 different IP addresses and although I eliminate the switch as a single point of failure I now have a DNS issue.
There are ways of getting over this, depending on your network topology/routing. One would be to migrate the IP address of the failed interface to the other interface should the link fail - a simple shell script should be able to do this.
Any ideas would be appreciated.
Don't fall into the trap of over-engineering your network. Before you go much further think about the last time your switch failed. Most switches (especially reputable brands) have reliability bordering on rock-solid, so you might be trying to cater for an event that will never happen. In my experience, servers go down far more often than switches do (even if just for regular maintenance) so you might consider how to protect services if/when your server goes down more than when your switch does.

Mac OS X Server v10.7 does not show the ethernet link aggregated interface I created in Server Hardware Network Dialogue window. Are link aggregated ethernet connections not supported in Lion Server?

Mac OS X Server v10.7 does not show the ethernet link aggregated interface i created. Does Lion server support ethernet link aggregated interfaces?

Thanks for responding Cold--
Hardware: Mac Pro 3.0 GHZ quad core xeon
I read the link but it still does not explain why the aggregated dual ethernet interface does not show up in the Network tab of the hardware section Lion Server. I was able to see it on the network and looks to be using a single static IP that I assigned. My concern was that is this supported and will it allow for failover and double performance of the single network interface.
Any thoughts?
Thanks again!

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 stradling two switches?

Hey guys, I'm back with more questions about Link agregation. I figured out that I do have to manually configure both of my switches to support it. Now though I'm stuck with trying to figure out the best way to implement it. I have a Netgear FSM726 and a Linksys EF24G2. Both are 24-port 100BT switches with 2 Gigabit ports on them. They are currently setup like this: The Xserve runs with one gigabit port going into one of the gigabit ports on the Linksys. The other gigabit port on the linksys runs into the Netgear to join the two together. That leaves one open gigabit port on the netgear.
So in order to setup link aggregation I'd have to use two gigabit ports on one of the switches, or use two 100BT ports. Alternatively, I was thinking if I setup link aggregation on the Xserve and then just ran each of the two lines into one gigabit port on both switches it may work without having to do any configuring on the switches? Will that cause any problems with network traffic?
If I go with the gigabit port on one switch idea, as far as I see, I'd have to join the two switches with a 100BT connection instead of the current gigabit line. I'm not even sure if that matters really. So which way is a better way to go? Also, if I go with using the gigabit ports on one switch, can I use two open 100BT ports to join into the other switch for increased bandwidth? Thanks for helping out here.

Steve has it right. Link aggregation only works between two devices (e.g. a server and a switch, or two switches). You cannot link three devices (a server and two switches) using a single link aggregation. That's because of how the traffic flows over the link.
Your best solution depends on the traffic patterns on your network - where are the clients that are hitting this server?
If you have a dozen clients that hit the server a lot, plus more clients that don't hit it much (or at all), plus printers, etc., you could use two of the gigabit ports on one switch as a link aggregate to the server and plug the busy clients into that switch, then plug the other clients into the other switch, using a 100base-T link (or multiple 100base-T links) to connect to two switches together.
This may or may not be viable, in which case a separate gigabit switch to connect the server and the two existing switches may be the best solution.

Link Aggregation with LACP off

Hi,
How does Link Aggregation in Solaris 10 works in the switch if LACP is off?
If it's flip-flopping between two ports in the switch. Who's responsible to update the arp table in the switch?
Thanks

I haven't tried it with a Cisco but you don't have any other/old network/interface settings left on the OS X server when trying LACP do you?
There should only be the bond0 "interface" (with IP, netmask and so on) when trying LACP.

Does the ME3400 switch support MDI/MDI-x autocross

Does the ME3400 switch support MDI/MDI-x autocross? I recently experienced a situation where when the switch was set to a fixed 100 Full duplex and the outboard device selected the wrong pair, they would never link.
Is MDI/MDI-x only supported on auto-negotiation?

“Thank you for your question. This community is for Cisco Small Business products and your question is in reference to a Cisco Elite/Classic product. Please post your question in the Cisco NetPro forums located here: http://forums.cisco.com/eforum/servlet/NetProf?page=main This forum has subject matter experts on Cisco Elite/Classic products that may be able to answer your question.”
- Switches ----> Network Infrastructure Forum http://forum.cisco.com/eforum/servlet/NetProf;jsessionid=E0EEC3D9CB4E5165ED16933737822748.SJ3A?page=Network_Infrastructure_discussion

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.

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

I am trying to re-install Photoshop CS6. The files have downloaded but I get and error message that the Adobe Support Advisor is required to determine what the installation probIem is. I click on the link that says "get the Support Advisor here only to be

I am trying to re-install Photoshop CS6. The files have downloaded but I get and error message that the Adobe Support Advisor is required to determine what the installation probIem is. I click on the link that says "get the Support Advisor here only to be told the Support Advisor no longer exists!! A blind loop. I need to have Photoshop CS6 installed...what do I do from here??

The CC Cleaner Tool assumes the Akamai Download Manager is activated and it has not. It seems to be the missing file that triggers the error message. \in a previous re-install I was prompted to download & install the Akamai Download Manger, but not this time. Is there somewhere on the Adobe website that I can download it??

WARNING: Any laptop that comes with an *automatic* switching Radeon 6770m does not support OpenGL.

WARNING: HP has falsely advertised their dv6 and dv7 line. Any laptop that comes with an *automatic* switching Radeon 6770m does not support OpenGL and various other software. OpenGL games, Adobe CS Suit, and Design programs such as CAD or MatLab are incompatible with this laptop!

According to this post the 6670m does fully support open GL 4.1
http://forum.notebookreview.com/hp-pavilion-notebooks/583203-dv6t-7-switchable-graphics-76.html#post...
And AMD says it does also
http://www.amd.com/us/products/notebook/graphics/amd-radeon-6000m/amd-radeon-6700m-6600m/Pages/amd-r...

Does 2950 24 port switch support 12.1(22)EA4

Hi,
Does 2950 24 port switch support 12.1(22)EA4 ?
Regards
SKRAO

I deleted the existing IOS image 12.1(22)EA1 from the switch and uploaded 12.1(22)EA4
But after reloading the switch I am facing following problem.
I am attaching the console log.
Regards
SKRAO

Cisco LAN Management Solution is required to support Cisco Nexus 5548P and 5596UP switches?

Hi,
Could someone help to know what Cisco LAN Management Solution is required to support Cisco Nexus 5548P switches and Cisco Nexus 5596UP switches?
These new Cisco switches are being implementing on customer network and he ask us that he requires these equipments be supported on a LMS solution (customer currently is using LMS 3.2.1)
Can someone help?
Thanks in advanced,
guruiz

Some very limited Nexus support is present in LMS 3.2.1 - see the supported device table here.
To get more complete support, including the 5596UP, they need to upgrade to LMS 4.x (e.g. LMS 4.2.2 is the latest and is sold under the Cisco Prime Infrastructure 1.2 umbrella). The major upgrade from 3.x to 4.x requires purchasing an upgrade license.
Some functions (namely User Tracking ) will not be available on the 5k due to non-support of the requisite MIB on the device. I believe LMS still doesn't let you do VLAN management on 5k's - you need to use DCNM for that if you want to do it from a GUI.
See the table here for LMS 4.2 device support.

SRW224G4 and 2960 Link Aggregation LACP problem

Hello
WE have Linksys SRW224G4 and Cisco 2960 switches.
We made link aggregation onboth two ports between them, all is working except that when I make continuous ping between them it fails every 90 seconds one ping. I saw the problem is , when I connect to SRW224G4 by telnet and go CTRL+Z and lcli , and login, I got console. Every 90 seconds I got this messages:
01-Jan-2000 22:14:49 %TRUNK-W-PORTREMOVED: Port g2 removed from ch1
01-Jan-2000 22:14:53 %TRUNK-W-PORTREMOVED: Port g1 removed from ch1
01-Jan-2000 22:14:53 %LINK-W-Down: ch1
01-Jan-2000 22:14:53 %TRUNK-I-PORTADDED: Port g1 added to ch1
01-Jan-2000 22:14:53 %LINK-I-Up: ch1
01-Jan-2000 22:14:56 %TRUNK-I-PORTADDED: Port g2 added to ch1
So after this one ping fails, and it goes good next 90 seconds, and then again same group of same messages and one ping fails.
I tried all options to change on Linksys and nothing, still i got this link down and up and one ping failed.
Did someone had same problem, can you help me somehow.
THank you
Hrvoje Pastar

Hello
WE have Linksys SRW224G4 and Cisco 2960 switches.
We made link aggregation onboth two ports between them, all is working except that when I make continuous ping between them it fails every 90 seconds one ping. I saw the problem is , when I connect to SRW224G4 by telnet and go CTRL+Z and lcli , and login, I got console. Every 90 seconds I got this messages:
01-Jan-2000 22:14:49 %TRUNK-W-PORTREMOVED: Port g2 removed from ch1
01-Jan-2000 22:14:53 %TRUNK-W-PORTREMOVED: Port g1 removed from ch1
01-Jan-2000 22:14:53 %LINK-W-Down: ch1
01-Jan-2000 22:14:53 %TRUNK-I-PORTADDED: Port g1 added to ch1
01-Jan-2000 22:14:53 %LINK-I-Up: ch1
01-Jan-2000 22:14:56 %TRUNK-I-PORTADDED: Port g2 added to ch1
So after this one ping fails, and it goes good next 90 seconds, and then again same group of same messages and one ping fails.
I tried all options to change on Linksys and nothing, still i got this link down and up and one ping failed.
Did someone had same problem, can you help me somehow.
THank you
Hrvoje Pastar

Link aggregation must require switch support lacp ,does it?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for