On Aug 1, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Tim Pushor wrote:

Jason Dixon wrote:
On Aug 1, 2006, at 2:48 PM, Tim Pushor wrote:

Can anyone recommend another 4 port 10/100 ethernet card that will work well with OpenBSD 3.9?

I don't have any recommendations on 4 port cards. If you have a switch that will support it, you should consider using VLANs with a gigabit card instead.
Hmm now that is VERY interesting. Would it be possible to run a trunk on a vlan, then a carp on the trunk?

Also, why the gigabit? Strictly performance?

I think you're getting your technologies confused. If you're referring to an OpenBSD trunk (versus a Cisco trunk), that is an aggregation of physical ports on a switch. Theoretically, you would do this, then layer vlan interfaces on top of the trunk. However, you mentioned that you wanted 4 10/100 interfaces. Using a single gigabit port would enable you to exceed the capacity of 4 10/100 interfaces with a single port. You would have a single physical interface (say, em0) connected to a switch port enabled for VLANs (e.g., Cisco trunk). Then you can split up the networks by VLAN, rather than by physical connection. Here's a sample setup.

# cat /etc/hostname.em0
up
# cat /etc/hostname.vlan0
inet 10.10.0.1 255.255.255.0 10.10.0.255 vlan 100 vlandev em0
# cat /etc/hostname.vlan1
inet 10.20.0.1 255.255.255.0 10.10.0.255 vlan 200 vlandev em0
# cat /etc/hostname.vlan2
inet 10.30.0.1 255.255.255.0 10.10.0.255 vlan 300 vlandev em0
# cat /etc/hostname.vlan3
inet 10.40.0.1 255.255.255.0 10.10.0.255 vlan 400 vlandev em0

The benefits should be obvious. One of my more complex setups has 3 vlan interfaces on em0 (one per T1) and 16 vlan interfaces on em1 (one per isolated network). I am using carp interfaces on top of each vlan interface, providing failover capabilities. Not to mention the QoS. :)

But to answer your question... no, it is not strictly a performance (higher throughput, fewer interrupts, etc) boost. Having less hardware means less opportunity for something to fail (ports, cables, etc).

HTH.

--
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net

Reply via email to