hi,
I want to bound two e1000 (1Gb/s) channels and use at the moment LCAP,
but the max throughput is slower, than without channel bounding. I've
got round about 70MB/s instead of > 150MB/s - 200MB/s.
I used iperf with standard options:
:~$ iperf -f M -c 1.2.3.4
--
Hello guys,
I have a new machine with Xeon(R) CPU X5650 2666.77-MHz and I would like
to utilize powerd(8) on it however, when I run `powerd -v -r90' I see
something like this:
load 64%, current freq 2668 MHz ( 0), wanted freq 5336 MHz
load 120%, current freq 2668 MHz ( 0), wanted freq 5336 M
Hi.
On 08.04.2011 14:12, Daniel Geržo wrote:
I have a new machine with Xeon(R) CPU X5650 2666.77-MHz and I would like
to utilize powerd(8) on it however, when I run `powerd -v -r90' I see
something like this:
load 64%, current freq 2668 MHz ( 0), wanted freq 5336 MHz
load 120%, current freq 266
Denny,
Since LACP uses hashing to determine which channel to send the packet to
the traffic between two nodes (ip:mac ip:mac) will always get bound to only
one of the two channels.
I am using HP procurve's here and they do seem to hash by ip too
although I can't see/tweak that as in catalyst. If y
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:42:04 +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
Hello Alexander, thanks for quick reply;
root@[s1-a ~]# powerd -v -r 1000 -i 600
powerd: 1000 is not a valid percent
Well, that makes sense, but why powerd itself knows about load >
100%
but doesn't allow me to specify it? Is this bu
On 08.04.2011 17:42, Daniel Gerzo wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:42:04 +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
root@[s1-a ~]# powerd -v -r 1000 -i 600
powerd: 1000 is not a valid percent
Well, that makes sense, but why powerd itself knows about load > 100%
but doesn't allow me to specify it? Is this bug?
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 18:02:28 +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
OK, I understand what you are saying here. On the other side, I know
pretty well how the load is distributed - in this particular case,
the
box is a web server, running ~30 php-cgi processes.
This kind of operation doesn't require very
On 08.04.2011 19:53, Daniel Gerzo wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 18:02:28 +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
OK, I understand what you are saying here. On the other side, I know
pretty well how the load is distributed - in this particular case, the
box is a web server, running ~30 php-cgi processes.
This
