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.

Similar Messages

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 - 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 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

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 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!

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 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.

Want to configure BACKUP VPN in asa 5505 for failover link

Hi,
Current i'm having 2 isps one tata and another one reliance iwant to configure the backup vpn for reliance ip for same peer ip which tata vpn had configured
i mandatory to configure same SA,ENCRPTION,IPSEC POLICY,KEY,LIFETIME...etc for failover vpn also.

Hi michael,
First of thanks for reply.
Can we do it by public certificate or DNS entry e.g. both ISP Public ip address entry will be in DNS and user will hit particular DNS name. You r right that once link down so user will disconnect but when he will retry then he will connect via another link.
Is it possible??
Ashish

Challenge: Spanning Tree Control Between 2 links from Switch DELL M6220 to 2 links towards 2 switches CISCO 3750 connected with an stack (behavior like one switch for redundancy)

Hello,
I have an Spanning tree problem when i conect 2 links from Switch DELL M6220 (there are blades to virtual machines too) to 2 links towards 2 switches CISCO 3750 connected with an stack (behavior like one switch for redundancy, with one IP of management)
In dell virtual machine is Spanning tree rapid stp, and in 3750 is Spanning tree mode pvst, cisco says that this is not important, only is longer time to create the tree.
I dont know but do you like this solutions i want to try on sunday?:
Could Spanning tree needs to work to send one native vlan to negociate the bdpus? switchport trunk native vlan 250
Is it better to put spanning-tree guard root in both 3750 in the ports to mitigate DELL to be root in Spanning Tree?
Is it better to put spanning- tree port-priority in the ports of Swicht Dell?
¿could you help me to control the root? ¿Do you think its better another solution? thanks!
CONFIG WITH PROBLEM
======================
3750: (the 2 ports are of 2 switches 3750s conected with a stack cable, in a show run you can see this)
interface GigabitEthernet2/0/28
description VIRTUAL SNMP2
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
switchport trunk allowed vlan 4,13,88,250
switchport mode trunk
switchport nonegotiate
logging event trunk-status
shutdown
interface GigabitEthernet1/0/43
description VIRTUAL SNMP1
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
switchport trunk allowed vlan 4,13,88,250
switchport mode trunk
switchport nonegotiate
shutdown
DELL M6220: (its only one swith)
interface Gi3/0/19
switchport mode trunk
switchport trunk allowed vlan 4,13,88,250
exit
interface Gi4/0/19
switchport mode trunk
switchport trunk allowed vlan 4,13,88,250
exit

F.Y.I for catylyst heroes - here is the equivalent config for SG-300 - Vlan1 is required on the allowed list on the catylyst side (3xxx/4xxx/6xxx)
In this example:
VLANS - Voice on 188, data on 57, management on 56.
conf t
hostname XXX-VOICE-SWXX
no passwords complexity enable
username xxxx priv 15 password XXXXX
enable password xxxxxx
ip ssh server
ip telnet server
crypto key generate rsa
macro auto disabled
voice vlan state auto-enabled !(otherwise one switch controls your voice vlan….)
vlan 56,57,188
voice vlan id 188
int vlan 56
ip address 10.230.56.12 255.255.255.0
int vlan1
no ip add dhcp
ip default-gateway 10.230.56.1
interface range GE1 - 2
switchport mode trunk
channel-group 1 mode auto
int range fa1 - 24
switchport mode trunk
switchport trunk allowed vlan add 188
switchport trunk native vlan 57
qos advanced
qos advanced ports-trusted
exit
int Po1
switchport trunk allowed vlan add 56,57,188
switchport trunk native vlan 1
do sh interfaces switchport po1
!CATYLYST SIDE
!Must Explicitly allow VLan1, this is not normal for catalysts - or spanning tree will not work ! Even though it’s the native vlan on both sides.
interface Port-channel1
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
switchport trunk allowed vlan 1,56,57,189
switchport mode trunk

I have configured Link Aggregation on two SF300 Switch

The two links connect to both switches via two radios. The problem is that I am unable to access the http interface of the attached radios:
Everything else is working fine and the radios are passing data according to PRTG monitoring of the attached equipment
Thank you

Well it looks like that is it.
Based on it, it looks like you can never manage your bridges due to this.
This is due to the concept of the etherchannel and how it operates
The L3 Packets coming from the management IP of the bridges can never be process because the etherchannel does not recognize it. It only processes packets from its peer, etherchannel port to etherchannel port.
All in all, you cant manage your bridges, to put it simply

SG300-10mp Fibre Link aggregation

Hi,
I have 2 SG300-10mp switches which i am trying to create a link redundancy for over the two fibre ports.
On the web interface when i go into the LAG settings ports g9 and g10 which are the fibre ones don't show up.
How do i create the link aggregation between them? Or perhaps i'm doing the wrong thing... All i require is the two switches to function as normal, however should one fibre port become faulty or the cable to break, the over port just takes over straight away with no latency, or atleast very minimal.
Please help!

Hello Ashley,
I think I see where the confusion is here.
When you are looking at the LAG settings page, the 8 things you see listed represent the 8 possible LAGs that the switch can handle, the page actually looks exactly the same even with a 24 port switch. You are seeing the LAGs themselves, not your individual switchports.
If you go to LAG management, you should be able to select one of those 8 LAGs and click the edit button. The window that pops up should allow you to add both fiber ports to the LAG. I don't have one of these in front of me right now, but since the SFP slots on the 300's are combo ports they will probably be numbered as whatever the ethernet port combo'ed to the SFP slot is.
Simply add the ports you would like to the LAG, and check LACP if you are using it on the other switch (you cannot change this setting later, you would have to delete the LAG first).
This way you have the redundancy you are looking over with the added benefit of having more throughput available between those two switches, since the traffic will be load-balanced across the LAG.
A LAG will also failover much faster than two redundant links, since it won't have to go through the Spanning Tree process everytime a link state changes.
Like I said I don't have one of these in front of me right now, so if I messed something up let me know and I will try it in the lab tomorrow.
Let me know if you need any more information,
Christopher Ebert
Senior Network Support Engineer - Cisco Small Business Support Center
*Please rate helpful posts*

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.

How can I set a right link Aggregations?

I have a Enterprise T5220 server, running Solaris 10 that I am using as a backup server. On this server, I have a Layer 4, LACP-enabled link aggregation set up using two of the server's Gigabit NICs (e1000g2 and e1000g3) and until recently I was getting up to and sometimes over 1.5 Gb/s as desired. However, something has happened recently to where I can now barely get over 1 Gb/s. As far as I know, no patches were applied to the server and no changes were made to the switch that it's connected to (Nortel Passport 8600 Series) and the total amount of backup data sent to the server has stayed fairly constant. I have tried setting up the aggregation multiple times and in multiple ways to no avail. (LACP enabled/disabled, different policies, etc.) I've also tried using different ports on the server and switch to rule out any faulty port problems. Our networking guys assure me that the aggregation is set up correctly on the switch side but I can get more details if needed.
In order to attempt to better troubleshoot the problem, I run one of several network speed tools (nttcp, nepim, & iperf) as the "server" on the T5220, and I set up a spare X2100 as a "client". Both the server and client are connected to the same switch. The first set of tests with all three tools yields roughly 600 Mb/s. This seems a bit low to me, I seem to remember getting 700+ Mb/s prior to this "issue". When I run a second set of tests from two separate "client" X2100 servers, coming in on two different Gig ports on the T5220, each port also does ~600 Mb/s. I have also tried using crossover cables and I only get maybe a 50-75 Mb/s increase. After Googling Solaris network optimizations, I found that if I double tcp_max_buf to 2097152, and set tcp_xmit_hiwat & tcp_recv_hiwat to 524288, it bumps up the speed of a single Gig port to ~920 Mb/s. That's more like it!
Unfortunately however, even with the TCP tweaks enabled, I still only get a little over 1 Gb/s through the two aggregated Gig ports. It seems as though the aggregation is only using one port, though MRTG graphs of the two switch ports do in fact show that they are both being utilized equally, essentially splitting the 1 Gb/s speed between
the two ports.
Problem with the server? switch? Aggregation software? All the above? At any rate, I seem to be missing something.. Any help regarding this issue would be greatly appreciated!
Regards,
sundy
Output of several commands on the T5220:
uname -a:
SunOS oitbus1 5.10 Generic_137111-07 sun4v sparc SUNW,SPARC-Enterprise-T5220
ifconfig -a (IP and broadcast hidden for security):
lo0: flags=2001000849 mtu 8232 index 1
inet 127.0.0.1 netmask ff000000
aggr1: flags=1000843 mtu 1500 index 2
inet x.x.x.x netmask ffffff00 broadcast x.x.x.x
ether 0:14:4f:ec:bc:1e
dladm show-dev:
e1000g0 link: unknown speed: 0 Mbps duplex: half
e1000g1 link: unknown speed: 0 Mbps duplex: half
e1000g2 link: up speed: 1000 Mbps duplex: full
e1000g3 link: up speed: 1000 Mbps duplex: full
dladm show-link:
e1000g0 type: non-vlan mtu: 1500 device: e1000g0
e1000g1 type: non-vlan mtu: 1500 device: e1000g1
e1000g2 type: non-vlan mtu: 1500 device: e1000g2
e1000g3 type: non-vlan mtu: 1500 device: e1000g3
aggr1 type: non-vlan mtu: 1500 aggregation: key 1
dladm show-aggr:
key: 1 (0x0001) policy: L4 address: 0:14:4f:ec:bc:1e (auto) device address speed
duplex link state
e1000g2 0:14:4f:ec:bc:1e 1000 Mbps full up attached
e1000g3 1000 Mbps full up attached
dladm show-aggr -L:
key: 1 (0x0001) policy: L4 address: 0:14:4f:ec:bc:1e (auto) LACP mode: active LACP timer: short
device activity timeout aggregatable sync coll dist defaulted expired
e1000g2 active short yes yes yes yes no no
e1000g3 active short yes yes yes yes no no
dladm show-aggr -s:
key: 1 ipackets rbytes opackets obytes %ipkts %opkts
Total 464982722061215050501612388529872161440848661
e1000g2 30677028844072327428231142100939796617960694 66.0 59.5
e1000g3 15821243372049177622000967520476 64822888149 34.0 40.5

sundy.liu wrote:
Unfortunately however, even with the TCP tweaks enabled, I still only get a little over 1 Gb/s through the two aggregated Gig ports. It seems as though the aggregation is only using one port, though MRTG graphs of the two switch ports do in fact show that they are both being utilized equally, essentially splitting the 1 Gb/s speed between
the two ports.
Problem with the server? switch? Aggregation software? All the above? At any rate, I seem to be missing something.. Any help regarding this issue would be greatly appreciated!If you're only running a single stream, that's all you'll see. Teaming/aggregating doesn't make one stream go faster.
If you ran two streams simultaneously, then you should see a difference between a single 1G interface and an aggregate of two 1G interfaces.
Darren

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 to 2 switches for Failover

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for