Re: [CentOS] Bonding performance question

2011-01-12 Thread lhecking
> Is the layer2+3 option simply undocumented via modinfo or is it not > present in the CentOS bonding module? It's docuemnted in the kernel docs rpm, /usr/share/doc/kernel-doc-2.6.18/Documentation/networking/bonding.txt. --- This

Re: [CentOS] Bonding performance question

2011-01-12 Thread Paul Heinlein
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011, James Pearson wrote: > You could use xmit_hash_policy=layer2+3 - which just uses MAC and IP > addresses (which you do have more control over) - and see if you can > pick a mix of IP/MAC addresses that would result in all four > interfaces being used (theoretically) - and se

Re: [CentOS] Bonding performance question

2011-01-11 Thread Les Mikesell
On 1/11/2011 10:18 AM, lheck...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: > >> Hashing 4 values to 4 targets seems like collisions would be likely no >> matter how you do it. The TX packet/byte values from ifconfig on the >> NICs should show how much went out each interface. > > Yes, we checked that in addit

Re: [CentOS] Bonding performance question

2011-01-11 Thread James Pearson
lheck...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: >>I guess you need to look at the bonding src code - looks like it is in >>drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c - for CentOS 5 it is: > > > C xor is bitwise. > > I did a bit of scripting and found that the algorithm seems much more > sensitive to port number

Re: [CentOS] Bonding performance question

2011-01-11 Thread lhecking
> Hashing 4 values to 4 targets seems like collisions would be likely no > matter how you do it. The TX packet/byte values from ifconfig on the > NICs should show how much went out each interface. Yes, we checked that in addition to iperf's output. One interface was essentially idle. ---

Re: [CentOS] Bonding performance question

2011-01-11 Thread Les Mikesell
On 1/11/2011 10:05 AM, lheck...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: > >> I guess you need to look at the bonding src code - looks like it is in >> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c - for CentOS 5 it is: > > C xor is bitwise. > > I did a bit of scripting and found that the algorithm seems much more > s

Re: [CentOS] Bonding performance question

2011-01-11 Thread lhecking
> I guess you need to look at the bonding src code - looks like it is in > drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c - for CentOS 5 it is: C xor is bitwise. I did a bit of scripting and found that the algorithm seems much more sensitive to port numbers than IP addresses. Not that iperf gives much co

Re: [CentOS] Bonding performance question

2011-01-11 Thread James Pearson
lheck...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: >>According to the Linux bonding docs, xmit_hash_policy=layer3+4 uses: >> >> ((source port XOR dest port) XOR >> ((source IP XOR dest IP) AND 0x) >> modulo slave count >> >>So I guess you could plug in in the above IP addresses an

Re: [CentOS] Bonding performance question

2011-01-11 Thread lhecking
> According to the Linux bonding docs, xmit_hash_policy=layer3+4 uses: > >((source port XOR dest port) XOR > ((source IP XOR dest IP) AND 0x) > modulo slave count > > So I guess you could plug in in the above IP addresses and port numbers > and see if you get

Re: [CentOS] Bonding performance question

2011-01-11 Thread James Pearson
lheck...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: > I have a Dell server with four bonded, gigabit interfaces. Bonding mode is > 802.3ad, xmit_hash_policy=layer3+4. When testing this setup with iperf, > I never get more than a total of about 3Gbps throughput. Is there anything > to tweak to get better thro