Load Balancing ...Etherchannel?

[skk391]

Hi,

I have a question to put passed you. I have a server with 2 * 1gbps Nics connected to a gigabit cisco switch through one of the NIC's only. I have solarwinds bandwidth gauges running on that NIC because we have been getting network timeout on various applications. I have noticed that during the timeouts the amount of data can reach over 318mbps transmitting and 1.65 mbps recieving, its usually around this sort of level that the applications start to time out. can someone please tell me if I am correct, is the maximium amount of data that can be transmitted on this link 1gb (1000 mbps)?

Can I enabled the other NIC on the server and create an Etherchannel from the server to the switch? I have created a couple of etherchannels on the switch already. these connect this switch to other switch so I know this is can done. But can I create on to a server. I am trying to releave some of the pressure on the one NIC and have some load balancing across two NIC's. Can I just enabled the second NIC on the server and will data then leave the server across the two Nic's?

Thanks

 

[baddos]

If you setup an etherchannel on the switch you need the server to create a "team" on it's network card driver. Both Intel and Broadcom have utilies for doing this.

 

[MrOyvind]

What is the difference between PAGP(Cisco) and LACP(IEEE) ?

 

[unclerico]

Just as you typed, PaGP is Cisco proprietary and LACP is industry standard

I hate all Uppercase... I don't want my groups to seem angry at me all the time! =)
- ColdFlame (vbscript forum)

 

[VinceWhirlwind]

To be precise, to "team" the two server interfaces you would create an "aggregated link" using LACP, rather than actual "etherchannel", which is Cisco proprietary.

So on the switch you configure the switchport members of the aggregated link with:
"channel-group [n] mode active

 

[skk391]

Thanks guys, excellent information! I didnt know about teaming. I have just downloaded the Proset software to enabled this and can see the 'teaming; tab to configure it. Im just going to read up about the commands which I will have to run on the cisco switch to make it all work and thanks for the "channel-group [n] mode active" command VinceWhirlwind.

Thanks again everyone

 

[VinceWhirlwind]

On the other hand, some of these new-fangled servers have a virtual switch in them and that could be configured as a Cisco switch.
Just read your server doco about what they mean by "teaming".

 

[MrOyvind]

I ment the difference in performance etc. between LACP and PAGP.
What is the reason for making two protocols if there is no difference ? I know LACP must be used with servers and other manufactors in a Cisco network, but you have the choice to use LACP or PAGP between two Cisco switches.
It seems meanless with PAGP if it works like LACP.

 

[unclerico]

you have to remember that Cisco comes to market with a pre-standard version of virtually every protocol. sometimes they phase theirs out in favor of the industry standard version, sometimes they don't. you'll find that most hardware platforms have some sort of proprietary protocols that they use. think of it like CDP and LLDP-MED. CDP is Cisco proprietary while LLDP-MED is industry standard. Both do virtually the same thing, but Cisco supports them both. there are many others...

I hate all Uppercase... I don't want my groups to seem angry at me all the time! =)
- ColdFlame (vbscript forum)