On Thu, 2013-08-01 at 17:14 -0500, Joe Moog wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Joe Moog <joem...@ebureau.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Aug 1, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Ryan Stone <ryst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Have you tried using only two ports, but both from the NIC?  My suspicion 
> >> would be that the problem is in the lagg's handling of more than 2 ports 
> >> rather than the driver, especially given that it is the igb driver in all 
> >> cases.
> > 
> > Ryan:
> > 
> > We have done this successfully with two ports on the NIC, on another 
> > hardware-identical host. That said, it is entirely possible that this is a 
> > shortcoming of lagg. 
> > 
> > Can you think of any sort of workaround? Our desired implementation really 
> > requires the inclusion of all 4 ports in the lagg. Failing this we're 
> > looking at the likelihood of 10G ethernet, but with that comes significant 
> > overhead, both cost and administration (before anybody tries to force the 
> > cost debate, remember that there are 10G router modules and 10G-capable 
> > distribution switches involved, never mind the cabling and SFPs -- it's not 
> > just a $600 10G card for the host). I'd like to defer that requirement as 
> > long as possible. 4 aggregated gig ports would serve us perfectly well for 
> > the near-term.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > Joe
> 
> UPDATE: After additional testing, I'm beginning to suspect the igb driver. 
> With our setup, ifconfig identifies all the ethernet ports as igb(0-5). I 
> configured igb0 with a single static IP address (say, 192.168.1.10), and was 
> able to connect to the host administratively. While connected, I enabled 
> another port as a second standalone port, again with a unique address (say, 
> 192.168.1.20), and was able to access the host via that interface as well. 
> The problem arises when we attempt to similarly add a third interface to the 
> mix -- and it doesn't seem to matter what interface(s) we use, or in what 
> order we activate them. Always on the third interface, that third interface 
> fails to respond despite showing "active" both in ifconfig and on the switch.
> 
> If there is anything else I could try that would be useful to help identify 
> where the issue may reside, please let me know.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Joe

Your test seems to indicate that the *first* port on the quad-port card
is causing you issues as the on-board interfaces igb0/1 are working
fine.

Can you bring up *any* ports on the quad-port card?

Are you sure that device enumeration is correct in the host o/s and that
port 1 on the aud-port card is really igb2, port 2 is igb3, etc ?

Sean

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to