Yeah, I agree... any other solution than USB is better for this, but this
is what I have. Startech - they are on the supported hcl list
Running tagged VLANs on top of one of these goes well, but if I create a
trunk against a cisco catalyst switch, I get random USB IOERRORs and
similar.
The trunk
> > Obvious question, but: did you go 5.6 -> 5.8 or 5.6 -> 5.7 -> 5.8?
>
> 5.6 -> 5.8 but followed the upgrade guides for both and ran sysmerge
> once?
>
> for the emailed bug report for the separate issue I said upgraded but
> it was a new install.
So either this is fixed in 5.9 \O/ or I didn
Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > I have upgraded a system from 5.6 to 5.8 and found that whilst the
> > children of a trunk port show output in tcpdump, the trunk port itself
> > whilst looking ok in ifconfig gives no aggregated roundrobin output at
> > all. Any ideas why?
>
> Sorry, it's not 5.8 but 5.8
> Obvious question, but: did you go 5.6 -> 5.8 or 5.6 -> 5.7 -> 5.8?
5.6 -> 5.8 but followed the upgrade guides for both and ran sysmerge
once?
for the emailed bug report for the separate issue I said upgraded but
it was a new install.
--
KISSIS - Keep It Simple So It's Securable
> I have upgraded a system from 5.6 to 5.8 and found that whilst the
> children of a trunk port show output in tcpdump, the trunk port itself
> whilst looking ok in ifconfig gives no aggregated roundrobin output at
> all. Any ideas why?
Sorry, it's not 5.8 but 5.8-current i386 most recent snapshot
I have upgraded a system from 5.6 to 5.8 and found that whilst the
children of a trunk port show output in tcpdump, the trunk port itself
whilst looking ok in ifconfig gives no aggregated roundrobin output at
all. Any ideas why?
p.s. Has anyone else seen anything similar to the following, if not
t
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Xinform3n wrote:
>> Don't think xeons ever supported ia64.
>
> That's true...
> I confused Intel 64 instructions. EMT64 ?
> Anyway, OpenBSD amd64 won't work on this type of CPU, right ?
>
I used to run OpenBSD/amd64 firewalls on machines that had Xeons with
early
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 01:18:00PM +0100, Xinform3n wrote:
> > OpenBSD-amd64 runs on intels that do have EMT64. Its just intel that
> > wanted a name for the 64bit mode without "amd" in the name.
>
> You are probably speaking about x86_64, not EMT64.
> EMT64 isn't compatible with amd64, x86_64 no
2013/1/25 Xinform3n :
>> Don't think xeons ever supported ia64.
> That's true...
> I confused Intel 64 instructions. EMT64 ?
> Anyway, OpenBSD amd64 won't work on this type of CPU, right ?
OpenBSD-amd64 runs on intels that do have EMT64. Its just intel that
wanted a name for the 64bit mode without
2013/1/25 Xinform3n :
> Reply @Thomas Bodzar
>> Why i386 on 12GB of RAM? Did you test amd64 and best option current?
> Because it's an old Xeon CPU which doesn't support amd64 instructions
> (only ia64).
Don't think xeons ever supported ia64.
--
May the most significant bit of your life be posit
e links
> used for sending but selective for recieving.
That's why my switch is also configured with aggregation, with an
algorithm based on @MAC src+dst, @IP src+dst.
> And 870 Mbps is a respectible speed for a gig card.
You are right, but for trunking (with loadbalance or LACP algo
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 04:02:04PM +0100, Patrick Vultier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tried to use two OpenBSD systems as network load with iperf and netperf.
>
> Each server is equipped with two Intel dual NIC gigabit (plus one
> embedded gigabit NIC), two Xeon 3.2GHz H.T., 12GB RAM and OpenBSD 5.2
> i38
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Patrick Vultier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tried to use two OpenBSD systems as network load with iperf and netperf.
>
> Each server is equipped with two Intel dual NIC gigabit (plus one
> embedded gigabit NIC), two Xeon 3.2GHz H.T., 12GB RAM and OpenBSD 5.2
> i386.
Why i3
On 01/03/13 16:11, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2013-01-03, Friedrich Locke wrote:
Hi folks!
What happens if i have a trunk(loadbalance) interface setted for 2 physical
interfaces and connect each physical one on different switches?
Tnx
From the manual;
"The trunk protocols loadbala
I have never tried trunk on OBSD, and maybe I am miss reading the
manual, but even with failover mode you should be careful from having
a link connected to a switch which it's uplinks are disconnected from
the core.
Broadcom and Intel usually provide NIC teaming drivers for
Linux/Windows which pro
On 2013-01-03, Friedrich Locke wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> What happens if i have a trunk(loadbalance) interface setted for 2 physical
> interfaces and connect each physical one on different switches?
>
> Tnx
>
>
>From the manual;
"The trunk protocols loadbalance and roundrobin require a switch
Try it out by yourself on VMWare ESX.
Setups I'm aware of require a stack of two switches, then this will work fine.
On 3 jan 2013, at 21:46, Friedrich Locke wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> What happens if i have a trunk(loadbalance) interface setted for 2 physical
> interfaces and connect each physica
Hi folks!
What happens if i have a trunk(loadbalance) interface setted for 2 physical
interfaces and connect each physical one on different switches?
Tnx
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 10:06:26AM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
> I saw the 8200zl and 5400zl switches at the InterOp Vegas show. Though
> they are not rebranded Foundry/Brocade, I was told they actually are
> still rebranded somethings. As I said, I could be wrong recalling Force
> 10, and after loo
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 10:14:52AM -0400, John E.P. Hynes wrote:
> Toni Mueller wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm looking into getting switches to be used in port-extender style,
>> and found a thread from last year recommending Cisco switches. I need
>> about 20-50 ports atm, and would like to avoid Cisco.
* J.C. Roberts [2009-09-03 19:12]:
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 18:16:54 +0200 Henning Brauer
> wrote:
> > i don't see any connection to force10.
> >
> > the successor of the 9000 line is the 8200zl and from all i can tell
> > (i never touched on of those myself) has no relation to force10.
> > force10's
Hi,
On Thu, 03.09.2009 at 10:06:26 -0700, J.C. Roberts
wrote:
> Getting people at HP to just admit to rebranding is impossible, but
> getting them to tell what's really inside the box is double impossible.
HP is a big enough company that I'd expect to be able to open the
chassis and see some ch
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 18:16:54 +0200 Henning Brauer
wrote:
> * J.C. Roberts [2009-09-02 17:53]:
> > Also, you might want to note the innards of *most* HP ProCurve gear
> > was actually rebranded Foundry hardware.
> >
> > Since Brocade bought out Foundry, I believe HP is now using Force10
> > Netwo
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, tico wrote:
I much prefer Procurve over the cheap SMC or NetGear or Dell managed switches
I've had to deal with in the past -- yuck!
-T
Dell announced today they are going to private label Brocade AKA Foundry
switches.
diana
* J.C. Roberts [2009-09-02 17:53]:
> Also, you might want to note the innards of *most* HP ProCurve gear was
> actually rebranded Foundry hardware.
>
> Since Brocade bought out Foundry, I believe HP is now using Force10
> Networks hardware inside of their newer (rebranded) "ProCurve" line. I
> mi
Hi,
thanks for all your answers!
--
Kind regards,
--Toni++
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 10:39:54 -0400 Jason Dixon
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 01:26:27PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm looking into getting switches to be used in port-extender style,
> > and found a thread from last year recommending Cisco switches. I
> > need about 20-50 port
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 01:26:27PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking into getting switches to be used in port-extender style,
> and found a thread from last year recommending Cisco switches. I need
> about 20-50 ports atm, and would like to avoid Cisco. My current
> preference is us
Toni Mueller wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking into getting switches to be used in port-extender style,
and found a thread from last year recommending Cisco switches. I need
about 20-50 ports atm, and would like to avoid Cisco. My current
preference is using Procurve (2810 or 29xx). Do they work?
What do
Toni Mueller wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking into getting switches to be used in port-extender style,
and found a thread from last year recommending Cisco switches. I need
about 20-50 ports atm, and would like to avoid Cisco. My current
preference is using Procurve (2810 or 29xx). Do they work?
What do
slightly offtopic, but procurve works fine
trunk(4) was mostly developed with procurve on the switch side
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 01:26:27PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking into getting switches to be used in port-extender style,
> and found a thread from last year recommending
Hi,
I'm looking into getting switches to be used in port-extender style,
and found a thread from last year recommending Cisco switches. I need
about 20-50 ports atm, and would like to avoid Cisco. My current
preference is using Procurve (2810 or 29xx). Do they work?
What do you recommend? Any got
I successfully have two vlans running over one physical interface
connected to my managed switch (a PowerConnect 5224), but I can't get
the same two vlans to work when running over a trunk interface spanning
four physical interfaces.
Before: (this works, but only uses one physical interface)
Looking at the output from `ifconfig` (see below), I notice that the
trunk0 doesn't show that its "UP" - why wouldn't it be up?
Thanks,
Kent
# ifconfig
lo0: flags=8049 mtu 33168
groups: lo
inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff00
inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128
inet6 fe80::1%lo0 p
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 06:32:36PM -0500, Kent Watsen wrote:
> On a lark I just executed `ifconfig trunk0 up` and now my trunk is
> working! And, to make it come up automatically, I just added the single
> line "up" to hostname.trunk0...
>
> BTW, the "trunk" interface is not documented in hostn
On a lark I just executed `ifconfig trunk0 up` and now my trunk is
working! And, to make it come up automatically, I just added the single
line "up" to hostname.trunk0...
BTW, the "trunk" interface is not documented in hostname.if(5)
Thanks anyways,
Kent
Kent Watsen wrote:
Looking at th
- Thomas
On Wednesday 09 January 2008 20:18, you wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is it posible to do vlan trunking between an OpenBSD and a cisco
> switch? I know you can create vlan interfaces in OpenBSD but how would
> they be trunk with the switch?
>
> In the physical interface (hostnam
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Falk Brockerhoff wrote:
On Cisco side:
interface FastEthernet0/33
description temp. Uplink to brain
duplex full
speed 100
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
switchport mode trunk
no cdp enable
end
Regards,
Falk
Not that this is meant to be a Cisco training class, but i
Der Engel wrote:
Hello,
Hi,
Is it posible to do vlan trunking between an OpenBSD and a cisco
switch? I know you can create vlan interfaces in OpenBSD but how would
they be trunk with the switch?
Yes, without any problems.
$ cat /etc/hostname.em5
Hello,
Is it posible to do vlan trunking between an OpenBSD and a cisco
switch? I know you can create vlan interfaces in OpenBSD but how would
they be trunk with the switch?
In the physical interface (hostname.fxp1) i should just put 'up'? Do
you have to set some kind of native
multilink capable L2 portocol (like ppp) to
fully
use the bandwith of the additional link. Ethernet was not designed for
that and so bonding/trunking of interfaces give you a sub-optimal
performance improvement.
--
:wq Claudio
Thanks
That explains a lot
I guess until we can afford
ics.
>
Roundrobin may increase packet reordering which in turn reduces the tcp
window size because tcp thinks it is a network congestion. In the worst
case one connection may run slower over two link trunk than over a single
link. You need a real multilink capable L2 portocol (like ppp) to fully
use the bandwith of the additional link. Ethernet was not designed for
that and so bonding/trunking of interfaces give you a sub-optimal
performance improvement.
--
:wq Claudio
id, roundrobin mode may increase the speed, but it also
increases the interrupt load and many other factors. and it doesn't
work very well with non-openbsd systems on the other side. i have seen
it only once, that i got ~166Mbit/s with a crosslink trunk between 2x2
rl(4) nics.
use trunking/bonding to increase the bandwidth and to add additional
layer 2 redundancy.
reyk
Actually .. maybe I'm expecting too much from this ...
With 1 of the ports disabled, and roundrobin specified - transfer
speeds dropped from 1.2MB/s to about 780KB/s
Certainly at GigE speeds the graphs look a little more as I would
expect, so it could also be an artefact of testing at 10bas
On 12 Feb 2007, at 13:18, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2007/02/12 12:44, Jon Morby wrote:
My problem is that graphs of the 2 cisco ports show traffic is only
going via the 1 port and not being balanced across both ports as I
would have expected.
loadbalance hashes the header to determine which
On 2007/02/12 12:44, Jon Morby wrote:
> My problem is that graphs of the 2 cisco ports show traffic is only
> going via the 1 port and not being balanced across both ports as I
> would have expected.
loadbalance hashes the header to determine which link to use; you might
want round-robin inste
Hi
I'm trying to run an experiment (initially) with regards bonding/
trunking ethernet ports under OpenBSD (current) .. but I'm hitting a
snag and I haven't been able to google my way out of it as yet ...
I have 2 x Broadcom NICS set at 10mbit full duplex (for the purpose
g the load-balancing gained
with trunking. I know about route-to and reply-to, my question is: is it
possible to use it together with trunking and what are the implications
of doing so?
peter
affic,
however. Therefore I'd like to be able to route ftp (possibly other
protocols, too) through the 4Mb link, while retaining the load-balancing
gained with trunking. I know about route-to and reply-to, my question
is: is it possible to use it together with trunking and what are the
implication
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 11:03:28PM +0400, Bruno Carnazzi wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm looking at the link aggregation feature (man trunk(4)) of OpenBSD
> 3.8. In my case, I'd like to use it on Ethernet interfaces : should
> the switch be configured in a special way or is it level-2 transparent
> ? I
Hi all,
I'm looking at the link aggregation feature (man trunk(4)) of OpenBSD
3.8. In my case, I'd like to use it on Ethernet interfaces : should
the switch be configured in a special way or is it level-2 transparent
? I mostly use Cisco 2950 switches... What are the differences between
'round-r
Dries Schellekens wrote:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=111690466011478&w=2
How does this compare to NetBSD agr(4)? Is this also IEEE 802.3AD?
It does some things that agr does not, but doesn't do 802.3ad yet.
Probably soon though.
-d
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Razmus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: NIC bonding/trunking/802.3ad
> But this requires cooperation on the part of the switch. The original
> poster mentioned connecting to two distinct
Niall O'Higgins wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 02:01:23PM +0100, Hyb wrote:
It seems that the topic of 802.3ad support (link
aggregation|bonding|trunking|whatever you want to call it) seems to come
every so often, but is often disregarded on the basis that gigE is now
cheap. I se
Niall O'Higgins wrote:
speak of the devil! reyk@ got there already ...
Wow, is there nothing reyk@ can't do?
* Niall O'Higgins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050524 11:10]:
> On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 02:01:23PM +0100, Hyb wrote:
> > It seems that the topic of 802.3ad support (link
> > aggregation|bonding|trunking|whatever you want to call it) seems to come
> > every so often, but i
- Original Message -
From: "Niall O'Higgins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Hyb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: NIC bonding/trunking/802.3ad
> speak of the devil! reyk@ got there already ...
>
>
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 02:01:23PM +0100, Hyb wrote:
> It seems that the topic of 802.3ad support (link
> aggregation|bonding|trunking|whatever you want to call it) seems to come
> every so often, but is often disregarded on the basis that gigE is now
> cheap. I see the redudancy as
Hi list,
It seems that the topic of 802.3ad support (link
aggregation|bonding|trunking|whatever you want to call it) seems to come
every so often, but is often disregarded on the basis that gigE is now
cheap. I see the redudancy as a much more valuable asset though.
We have been recently
59 matches
Mail list logo
