thanks a lot. Looks like it isn't used too often with GBEs so far bad gets more popular with the FAS900 series as they actually want that much data or otherwise they get bored :)
and just to correct some wrong impression that I might have spread, I heard about the switch's performance being badly impacted by having to do the hashing algorithm, never heard anything bad about the filer. And then it was only with some switch manufacturers, iirc it said Cisco switches scale nicely. If only I could find that URL again.
- Moritz
-----Original Message----- From: Skottie Miller [mailto:skottie@anim.dreamworks.com] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 7:53 PM To: Willers, Moritz Cc: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Re: multi vif with 4 GBEs
Moritz.Willers@ubsw.com wrote:
has anyone ever configured one multi vif across 4 GBE interfaces? Is there anything to watch out for? I read rumors (can't find the source anymore) that the hashing algorithm to do the load sharing might badly impact performance.
Somehow I have not been able to find anyone that ever had a need for more in 2 GBEs in one multi vif, but the one exception of having one single vif across two switches and having on each switch a multi vif with 2 GBE interface ... clear as mud, right?
I've got two 960s, each with 4 GBE's in a multi-vif. using IP load balancing, all four interfaces can get plenty busy. 4 GBE interfaces ane needed on a 960, btw, because they can sustain 250 - 350 Mbyte/sec of read, at least with my workload.
for splitting the vifs acriss switches, I think you need to make two 2-GBE vifs, and then a third vif that contains the other two. netapp calls these "second-layer" vifs.
-skottie