Thanks for your responses, all.
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:30:22 -0800 kashani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First off don't assign separate IPs to each port on your four port > card, bond them into a single interface. That will simplify your > config and perform better. Perhaps I will; that's not a bad idea. However, I will still have another interface that is to handle non-NFS traffic. (The reason I split it this way, by the way, is that NFS is the only network service that might potentially be limited by bandwith. > Second, what sort of routing are you doing? If all the clients are on > the same subnet as the four port card you should not need routing. > Additionally if they are on the same subnet you should not be limited > by the speed of your gateway which may or may not be able to route at > 4 Gb/s whereas your switch may actually have that sort of > performaance. Are the clients on a separate subnet and if so can you > put them on the same subnet? No, they're all on the same subnet. Each of the 5 interfaces adds a route to that subnet (no gateway, as you said, it's the same broadcast domain) but the routes all have different metrics. The first such route chosen is the one that gets all the traffic. The NFS server is used primarily for Read access, so this routing problem does a pretty good job mitigating any benefit of having so many interfaces. Oh, by the way, this is 100-T, not Gigabit. Do I sound rich to you : ) ? So, let's say I bond the 4 together. Now I have 2 interfaces, a bond and eth0. I still need to route through one or the other, so I still have the problem. I am reading about policy routing, which should be able to solve the problem by allowing routing based on the source rather than the destination. I will keep the lists informed... -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
