Re: [E1000-devel] Bug report E1000 driver bonding in 802.3ad mode can not go beyond 1GB/s throughput

[Support T. <su...@ca...>]

All the bonding have proper values. But in this test, I did not plug all the
cables in the bonded interfaces. There are four independent PCI-X bus, each
has a 82546 dual port controller in it. Totally eight ports, they all bond
together.  But I only plugged in four cables into them, since I did not
expect the
throughput would go beyond 4Gb/s.

For sure this patch made the throughput go higher, but I think it could go
higher
on this system...

-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Vosburgh [mailto:fu...@us...] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:45 AM
To: su...@ca...
Cc: 'Ronciak, John'; e10...@li...
Subject: [work] Re: [E1000-devel] Bug report E1000 driver bonding in 802.3ad
mode can not go beyond 1GB/s throughput

Support Team <su...@ca...> wrote:

>Hi Jay,
>
>With this patch applied to the 2.4 kernel, we were able to get to
>1.8Gbits/s.
>From this result, I think to get bonding working correctly in 2.4 kernel, I
>probably
>have to back port a lot 2.6 changes into 2.4.  
>
>Thanks!

	If the patch actually fixed your problem, then your problem in
the first place had to do with the aggregation not forming correctly
(i.e., the links coming up individually, not as a set).  

	I think this is unlikely.  I think this because the 2.4 bonding
driver should already inspect the speed / duplex on each mii check (the
rate of which depends upon the miimon parameter value).  All the patch
does is additionally check the speed and duplex again when the system
notifies bonding that a slave's state has changed.

	Could you check a failing configuration again, and see if the
/proc/net/bonding/bond* shows that all of the slaves have the same
"aggregator ID," and that there is an active aggregator, and its
"partner MAC address" is not all zeroes?

	If the failing system shows all slaves with the same agg ID and
an active partner MAC, then I don't think this patch really fixed
anything, and something else changed that resolved the problem.

	I would appreciate it if you could check this, since if there is
an actual issue, I'll want to submit that patch to the stable 2.4
release (if it fixes an actual bug).

	-J

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fu...@us...