Re: Network throughput: Never get more than 112MB/s über two NICs *SOLVED*

2011-04-13 Thread Denny Schierz
Hi Dan, Am Dienstag, den 12.04.2011, 17:42 -0500 schrieb Dan Nelson: > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst4500/hardware/module/guide/03instal.html#wpxref23495 you saved our week :-) That was it. My Cisco administrator take a closer look and found out, that both NICs was connecte

Re: Network throughput: Never get more than 112MB/s über two NICs

2011-04-12 Thread Dan Nelson
In the last episode (Apr 12), Dan Nelson said: > In the last episode (Apr 12), Denny Schierz said: > > Am Montag, den 11.04.2011, 21:52 +0200 schrieb Denny Schierz: > > > Am 11.04.2011 um 20:06 schrieb Tim Daneliuk: > > > > Are you certain you are not somehow running active-passive instead of > > >

Re: Network throughput: Never get more than 112MB/s über two NICs

2011-04-12 Thread Andrew Thompson
On 11 April 2011 22:00, Denny Schierz wrote: > hi, > > after testing severals loadbalancing (LACP) types with Cisco, we saw, > that we never get more than 112MB/s with two network cards and iperf. > > So, we tested without loadbalancing, 4 Clients (iperf -f M -c ) and > two target IPs. Every IP ha

Re: Network throughput: Never get more than 112MB/s über two NICs

2011-04-12 Thread Ulrich Spörlein
On Mon, 11.04.2011 at 12:00:39 +0200, Denny Schierz wrote: > hi, > > after testing severals loadbalancing (LACP) types with Cisco, we saw, > that we never get more than 112MB/s with two network cards and iperf. > > So, we tested without loadbalancing, 4 Clients (iperf -f M -c ) and > two target

Re: Network throughput: Never get more than 112MB/s über two NICs

2011-04-12 Thread Dan Nelson
In the last episode (Apr 12), Denny Schierz said: > Am Montag, den 11.04.2011, 21:52 +0200 schrieb Denny Schierz: > > Am 11.04.2011 um 20:06 schrieb Tim Daneliuk: > > > Are you certain you are not somehow running active-passive instead of > > > active-active ... just a thought... > > > > 150% sur

Re: Network throughput: Never get more than 112MB/s über two NICs

2011-04-12 Thread Denny Schierz
hi, Am Montag, den 11.04.2011, 21:52 +0200 schrieb Denny Schierz: > hi, > > Am 11.04.2011 um 20:06 schrieb Tim Daneliuk: > > > Are you certain you are not somehow running active-passive instead of > > active-active ... > > just a thought... > > 150% sure. I used two dedicated NICs WITHOUT any

Re: Network throughput: Never get more than 112MB/s über two NICs

2011-04-11 Thread Denny Schierz
hi, Am 11.04.2011 um 20:06 schrieb Tim Daneliuk: > Are you certain you are not somehow running active-passive instead of > active-active ... > just a thought... 150% sure. I used two dedicated NICs WITHOUT any loadbalancing. The sum has to be more than 112MB/s. cu denny ps. I get every answ

Re: Network throughput: Never get more than 112MB/s über two NICs

2011-04-11 Thread Tim Daneliuk
On 4/11/2011 12:55 PM, Denny Schierz said this: > > Am 11.04.2011 um 16:20 schrieb Michael Loftis: > >> Most switches load balance based on MAC addresses, not IP, unless it >> is routing the traffic as a Layer 3 switch then you can enable IP >> based load balancing in some of those. Also you mig

Re: Network throughput: Never get more than 112MB/s über two NICs

2011-04-11 Thread Denny Schierz
Am 11.04.2011 um 16:20 schrieb Michael Loftis: > Most switches load balance based on MAC addresses, not IP, unless it > is routing the traffic as a Layer 3 switch then you can enable IP > based load balancing in some of those. Also you might simply be that was the reason, why we disabled the lo

Network throughput: Never get more than 112MB/s über two NICs

2011-04-11 Thread Denny Schierz
hi, after testing severals loadbalancing (LACP) types with Cisco, we saw, that we never get more than 112MB/s with two network cards and iperf. So, we tested without loadbalancing, 4 Clients (iperf -f M -c ) and two target IPs. Every IP has his own 1Gb/s network card. On the end, two clients had