On Aug 1, 2013, at 6:16 PM, John-Mark Gurney <j...@funkthat.com> wrote:
> Joe Moog wrote this message on Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 17:14 -0500: >> 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. > > Can you show an ifconfig -au from the host when it fails, and which was > the third interface that you added? Above, you talk about adding ips in > the same subnet to different interfaces, which with modern switchs can > cause issues with which port to deliver packets, etc. > > Do you have any firewalling enabled on the host? > There are no firewalls enabled on the host. I don't know that I see the switch as being the weak point in this setup as we have been very successful multihoming boxes with these switches for a variety of other purposes. I will collect and forward "ifconfig -au" output from the host in a couple of days, as we have had to fall back on the 2-port lagg to get this particular host in service until such time the 4-port lagg issue can be resolved. We will be setting up another hardware-identical host in a lab for further testing and info gathering. Thanks Joe _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
