LARTC
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [LARTC] bandwidth aggregation between 2 hosts in the same subnet

To: gtaylor+reply@riverviewtech.net
Subject: Re: [LARTC] bandwidth aggregation between 2 hosts in the same subnet
From: Ralf Gross <Ralf-Lists@ralfgross.de>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:12:32 +0200
Delivered-to: sp-com-lists@consult.net
Delivered-to: lartc-list@securepoint.com
Delivered-to: lartc@outpost.ds9a.nl
In-reply-to: <46AE3177.3030602@riverviewtech.net>
List-archive: <http://mailman.ds9a.nl/pipermail/lartc>
List-help: <mailto:lartc-request@mailman.ds9a.nl?subject=help>
List-id: "Mailinglist of the Linux Advanced Routing &amp; Traffic Control project" <lartc.mailman.ds9a.nl>
List-post: <mailto:lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc>, <mailto:lartc-request@mailman.ds9a.nl?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc>, <mailto:lartc-request@mailman.ds9a.nl?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <20070730141010.GA27667@p15145560.pureserver.info> <46AE3177.3030602@riverviewtech.net>
Resent-date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:13:33 +0200
Resent-from: rg@p15145560.pureserver.info
Resent-message-id: <20070730201333.GC27667@p15145560.pureserver.info>
Resent-sender: Ralf Gross <rg@stz-softwaretechnik.de>
Resent-to: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl
Sender: lartc-bounces@mailman.ds9a.nl
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Grant Taylor schrieb:
> On 07/30/07 09:10, Ralf Gross wrote:
> >I'm trying to increase the bandwidth between two hosts (backup). Both 
> >hosts are in the same /24 subnet and each of them is connected to a 
> >Cisco switch by 2 GbE interfaces (intel e1000). The switches/host are 
> >located in different building which are connected by 3 x GbE.
> 
> Ok, this is simple enough.
> 
> >My goal is to increase the bandwidth for a single tcp session between 
> >the two hosts for a backup job (per packet round robin?), not for 
> >multiple connections between many hosts. I know that I won't get 2 x 
> >115Mb/s because of packet reordering, but 20-30% more that a single 
> >connection would be ok.
> 
> *nod*
> 
> >Any ideas what I'm missing, or if it's possible at all?
> 
> You are barking up the wrong tree, or at least the wrong layer.  If you 
> have any control of the switches in each building, or can have someone 
> make changes to them for you.  Bond the two connections together to make 
> one logical larger connection.  Cisco calls this "EtherChannel" and 
> Linux calls this "Bonding".

I've tried bonding before. But this didn't work either because the
cisco switch decides on a src/dst mac/ip hash which port of the port
channel will be used. But in my case the hash is always the same
because between host A and host B. Thus always the same interface was
used.
 
> In the long run you will end up with two raw ethernet devices enslaved 
> in to one bond0 interface.  These two bonded / etherchannel interfaces 
> will have very close to 2 Gbps worth of speed.

But not between host A and host B. I've gone through this a while ago,
everyone told me than that I've to solve the problem on L3 ;)
 
> Do this on the lower OSI Layer 2 rather than trying (and failing) to do 
> it on the higher OSI Layer 3 where you are doing it presently.

I think it's not possible with the Cisco switches we use here to
increase the bandwidth between 2 hosts on L2. 

Ralf
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>