<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 17.09.16 um 00:40 schrieb Davide
Poletto:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CANKMAMZ7ffQ+F1ZwoQMwTFVHdEJ8GRR=G0kt178iEvNBPiaBNA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Hope not be wrong here but Port Trunking usage
deserves its part in the whole picture too: be aware that using
Port Trunking (with LACP as per IEEE 802.3ad) between your
Servers' NIC and your 10Gb Switching infrastructure - and this
happens by aggregating "n" identical ports together on both
link's ends, as you wrote - doesn't consequently mean that your
"one-Host-to-one-Host" generated traffic will be able to use and
will be able to saturate all those "n" 10Gb based links
concurrently...</p>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
+1<br>
<br>
It's a common misunderstanding that bundling a couple of ports
together with LACP results in bigger throughput, as one connection
will always only deliver it's maximum physical bandwidth. There are
bonding modes, which support that, but you'd have to be able to
configure this end to end, with some round-robin settings, as of on
wich NIC the next packet will be stuffed into the "pipe". Regular
802.3ad will not give you that, as it has been designed for
redundancy, not performance.<br>
<br>
So, LACP gives you mutiple read streams up to the number of NICs
involved in the bundle, but writes from the host will always be on
one NIC for any given connection. The classic algorithm is based on
the source and target MAC addresses. So you will not be able to get
2 to 3 GB/s over a 10GbE LACP bundle.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Stephan<br>
</body>
</html>