parallel network connections?

This may sound crazy, but is there a way to put 2 nics (in a Suse 9.1
system) on the same local network and have them both used, like in
load splitting? I'm bottlenecking badly and trying to think of a way
to increase thruput (I'm on gigabit already, and fiber is NOT in the
budget).

Any ideas?

Mike-

--
If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.
--
Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have installed
site-wide spam filters at catherders.com. If email from you bounces,
try non-HTML, non-encoded, non-attachments,

Op Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:03:39 -0400 schreef Michael W Cocke:

> This may sound crazy, but is there a way to put 2 nics (in a Suse 9.1
> system) on the same local network and have them both used, like in
> load splitting? I'm bottlenecking badly and trying to think of a way
> to increase thruput (I'm on gigabit already, and fiber is NOT in the
> budget).
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Mike-
>
> --
> If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.

First, I assume that the NIC is really the component that is
bottle-necking your system.

In that case, putting a second one in there should be not a problem at
all, I remember a previous discussion in which was stated that the
'route' program originally was designed just to do what you seem to need
now, load-balancing.

So, identify the nature of your network traffic and study 'man route'

HTH
--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Gerard Wassink http://linux.family.filternet.nl
http://freeware.family.filternet.nl
Linux counter #360967, "In a world without fences, who needs gates?"

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 12:26:58 +0200, Gerard Wassink <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Op Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:03:39 -0400 schreef Michael W Cocke:
>
>> This may sound crazy, but is there a way to put 2 nics (in a Suse 9.1
>> system) on the same local network and have them both used, like in
>> load splitting? I'm bottlenecking badly and trying to think of a way
>> to increase thruput (I'm on gigabit already, and fiber is NOT in the
>> budget).
>>
>> Any ideas?
>>
>> Mike-
>>
>> --
>> If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.
>
>First, I assume that the NIC is really the component that is
>bottle-necking your system.
>
>In that case, putting a second one in there should be not a problem at
>all, I remember a previous discussion in which was stated that the
>'route' program originally was designed just to do what you seem to need
>now, load-balancing.
>
>So, identify the nature of your network traffic and study 'man route'
>
>HTH

Either there's something I'm missing in man route or I need to explain
myself better, I think. Say I have 2 NICs in the same system. Both
connect to the same switch, on the same LAN. How would I get traffic
to use the least congested connection of the two?

Mike-

--
If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.
--
Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have installed
site-wide spam filters at catherders.com. If email from you bounces,
try non-HTML, non-encoded, non-attachments,

Op Wed, 04 Aug 2004 10:48:07 -0400 schreef Michael W Cocke:

> On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 12:26:58 +0200, Gerard Wassink <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>Op Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:03:39 -0400 schreef Michael W Cocke:
>>
>>> This may sound crazy, but is there a way to put 2 nics (in a Suse 9.1
>>> system) on the same local network and have them both used, like in
>>> load splitting? I'm bottlenecking badly and trying to think of a way
>>> to increase thruput (I'm on gigabit already, and fiber is NOT in the
>>> budget).
>>>
>>> Any ideas?
>>>
>>> Mike-
>>>
>>> --
>>> If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.
>>
>>First, I assume that the NIC is really the component that is
>>bottle-necking your system.
>>
>>In that case, putting a second one in there should be not a problem at
>>all, I remember a previous discussion in which was stated that the
>>'route' program originally was designed just to do what you seem to need
>>now, load-balancing.
>>
>>So, identify the nature of your network traffic and study 'man route'
>>
>>HTH
>
> Either there's something I'm missing in man route or I need to explain
> myself better, I think. Say I have 2 NICs in the same system. Both
> connect to the same switch, on the same LAN. How would I get traffic
> to use the least congested connection of the two?
>
> Mike-
>
> --
> If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.

Searching for "ip traffic shaping", I came accross:

http://www.knowplace.org/shaper/
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/...inuxAdmin.html

Another term to search for would be "QoS", Quality of Service...

http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/...to_doc/qos.htm

HTH

--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Gerard Wassink http://linux.family.filternet.nl
http://freeware.family.filternet.nl
Linux counter #360967, "In a world without fences, who needs gates?"

Michael W Cocke <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>This may sound crazy, but is there a way to put 2 nics (in a Suse 9.1
>system) on the same local network and have them both used, like in
>load splitting? I'm bottlenecking badly and trying to think of a way
>to increase thruput (I'm on gigabit already, and fiber is NOT in the
>budget).

If your switch supports it, "channel bonding" (aka etherchannel in
Cisco terminology, aka trunking in Sun terminology, aka teaming in
I-don't-remember-this-vendor terminology) could be a solution (though
I've only seen references to bonding w/100Mbit channels; I'm not
quite certain if it's available for 1Gbps channels.

Btw, have you checked that your system bus can handle two 1Gbps NICs
in parallel? See, 1Gbps=125Mbps and regular PCI bandwidth is 132Mbps.
--
Wolf a.k.a. Juha Laiho Espoo, Finland
(GC 3.0) GIT d- s+: a C++ ULSH++++$ P++@ L+++ E- W+$@ N++ !K w !O !M V
PS(+) PE Y+ PGP(+) t- 5 !X R !tv b+ !DI D G e+ h---- r+++ y++++
"...cancel my subscription to the resurrection!" (Jim Morrison)

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 18:08:47 +0200, Gerard Wassink <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Op Wed, 04 Aug 2004 10:48:07 -0400 schreef Michael W Cocke:
>
>> On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 12:26:58 +0200, Gerard Wassink <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Op Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:03:39 -0400 schreef Michael W Cocke:
>>>
>>>> This may sound crazy, but is there a way to put 2 nics (in a Suse 9.1
>>>> system) on the same local network and have them both used, like in
>>>> load splitting? I'm bottlenecking badly and trying to think of a way
>>>> to increase thruput (I'm on gigabit already, and fiber is NOT in the
>>>> budget).
>>>>
>>>> Any ideas?
>>>>
>>>> Mike-
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.
>>>
>>>First, I assume that the NIC is really the component that is
>>>bottle-necking your system.
>>>
>>>In that case, putting a second one in there should be not a problem at
>>>all, I remember a previous discussion in which was stated that the
>>>'route' program originally was designed just to do what you seem to need
>>>now, load-balancing.
>>>
>>>So, identify the nature of your network traffic and study 'man route'
>>>
>>>HTH
>>
>> Either there's something I'm missing in man route or I need to explain
>> myself better, I think. Say I have 2 NICs in the same system. Both
>> connect to the same switch, on the same LAN. How would I get traffic
>> to use the least congested connection of the two?
>>
>> Mike-
>>
>> --
>> If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.
>
>Searching for "ip traffic shaping", I came accross:
>
>http://www.knowplace.org/shaper/
>http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/...inuxAdmin.html
>
>Another term to search for would be "QoS", Quality of Service...
>
>http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/...to_doc/qos.htm
>
>HTH


Thanks, I'll go do some reading!

Mike-

--
If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.
--
Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have installed
site-wide spam filters at catherders.com. If email from you bounces,
try non-HTML, non-encoded, non-attachments,

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 19:12:03 GMT, Juha Laiho <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Michael W Cocke <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>This may sound crazy, but is there a way to put 2 nics (in a Suse 9.1
>>system) on the same local network and have them both used, like in
>>load splitting? I'm bottlenecking badly and trying to think of a way
>>to increase thruput (I'm on gigabit already, and fiber is NOT in the
>>budget).
>
>If your switch supports it, "channel bonding" (aka etherchannel in
>Cisco terminology, aka trunking in Sun terminology, aka teaming in
>I-don't-remember-this-vendor terminology) could be a solution (though
>I've only seen references to bonding w/100Mbit channels; I'm not
>quite certain if it's available for 1Gbps channels.
>
>Btw, have you checked that your system bus can handle two 1Gbps NICs
>in parallel? See, 1Gbps=125Mbps and regular PCI bandwidth is 132Mbps.

Well, this is just a potentially stupid idea I had, based on watching
the drive lights on the two computers that need to be connected
(They're mirror images). Just a guess, but I think if I could get
more bandwidth in there I could speed things up. Nothing else is
running over that wire (or the whole switch, for that matter) except
the copy. Rsync is great if the systems are mostly in sync, but if
it's a complete mismatch, I have to move 2 TB of data. 2 days for a
full copy isn't cutting it.

Mike-

--
If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.
--
Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have installed
site-wide spam filters at catherders.com. If email from you bounces,
try non-HTML, non-encoded, non-attachments,

Op Wed, 04 Aug 2004 17:48:16 -0400 schreef Michael W Cocke:

> On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 19:12:03 GMT, Juha Laiho <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>Michael W Cocke <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>This may sound crazy, but is there a way to put 2 nics (in a Suse 9.1
>>>system) on the same local network and have them both used, like in
>>>load splitting? I'm bottlenecking badly and trying to think of a way
>>>to increase thruput (I'm on gigabit already, and fiber is NOT in the
>>>budget).
>>
>>If your switch supports it, "channel bonding" (aka etherchannel in
>>Cisco terminology, aka trunking in Sun terminology, aka teaming in
>>I-don't-remember-this-vendor terminology) could be a solution (though
>>I've only seen references to bonding w/100Mbit channels; I'm not
>>quite certain if it's available for 1Gbps channels.
>>
>>Btw, have you checked that your system bus can handle two 1Gbps NICs
>>in parallel? See, 1Gbps=125Mbps and regular PCI bandwidth is 132Mbps.
>
> Well, this is just a potentially stupid idea I had, based on watching
> the drive lights on the two computers that need to be connected
> (They're mirror images). Just a guess, but I think if I could get
> more bandwidth in there I could speed things up. Nothing else is
> running over that wire (or the whole switch, for that matter) except
> the copy. Rsync is great if the systems are mostly in sync, but if
> it's a complete mismatch, I have to move 2 TB of data. 2 days for a
> full copy isn't cutting it.
>
> Mike-
>
> --
> If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.

The latest IDE harddisks (like the Seagate Barracuda IV) have
throughputs of about 69MB/s.

What kind of harddisks are you using?
What is their respective maximum throughput?
If controllers (in the case of SCSI) are in place, what is their maximum
throughput?

In short: are you sure that the bandwidth really *is* your problem? I
tink it isn't.

I mean: 2 TB sure *is* a lot of data but after a bit of basic arithmetic
I came to the following conclusion:

2,19902E+12 = 2Tb (your total amount of data)
45812984491 / hour (2Tb / 48 hours)
763549741,5 / minute (amount / hour divided by 60)
12725829,03 / second (and again by 60)

So your are getting an average throughput (over those two days) of
12,7Mb per second, which is fractionally more than one / tenth of the
possible 125Mb that is possible with one 1Gb NIC...


--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Gerard Wassink http://linux.family.filternet.nl
http://freeware.family.filternet.nl
Linux counter #360967, "In a world without fences, who needs gates?"

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 10:29:14 +0200, Gerard Wassink <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Op Wed, 04 Aug 2004 17:48:16 -0400 schreef Michael W Cocke:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 19:12:03 GMT, Juha Laiho <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Michael W Cocke <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>>This may sound crazy, but is there a way to put 2 nics (in a Suse 9.1
>>>>system) on the same local network and have them both used, like in
>>>>load splitting? I'm bottlenecking badly and trying to think of a way
>>>>to increase thruput (I'm on gigabit already, and fiber is NOT in the
>>>>budget).
>>>
>>>If your switch supports it, "channel bonding" (aka etherchannel in
>>>Cisco terminology, aka trunking in Sun terminology, aka teaming in
>>>I-don't-remember-this-vendor terminology) could be a solution (though
>>>I've only seen references to bonding w/100Mbit channels; I'm not
>>>quite certain if it's available for 1Gbps channels.
>>>
>>>Btw, have you checked that your system bus can handle two 1Gbps NICs
>>>in parallel? See, 1Gbps=125Mbps and regular PCI bandwidth is 132Mbps.
>>
>> Well, this is just a potentially stupid idea I had, based on watching
>> the drive lights on the two computers that need to be connected
>> (They're mirror images). Just a guess, but I think if I could get
>> more bandwidth in there I could speed things up. Nothing else is
>> running over that wire (or the whole switch, for that matter) except
>> the copy. Rsync is great if the systems are mostly in sync, but if
>> it's a complete mismatch, I have to move 2 TB of data. 2 days for a
>> full copy isn't cutting it.
>>
>> Mike-
>>
>> --
>> If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.
>
>The latest IDE harddisks (like the Seagate Barracuda IV) have
>throughputs of about 69MB/s.
>
>What kind of harddisks are you using?
>What is their respective maximum throughput?
>If controllers (in the case of SCSI) are in place, what is their maximum
>throughput?

All drives are ATA/133 IDE, running UDMA 6 mode. Each system has 11
250 Gb drives LVMd together into 1 filesystem.

>In short: are you sure that the bandwidth really *is* your problem? I
>tink it isn't.

I honestly don't know - you've given me some more things to think
about and test.

>I mean: 2 TB sure *is* a lot of data but after a bit of basic arithmetic
>I came to the following conclusion:
>
>2,19902E+12 = 2Tb (your total amount of data)
>45812984491 / hour (2Tb / 48 hours)
>763549741,5 / minute (amount / hour divided by 60)
>12725829,03 / second (and again by 60)
>
>So your are getting an average throughput (over those two days) of
>12,7Mb per second, which is fractionally more than one / tenth of the
>possible 125Mb that is possible with one 1Gb NIC...

Oooof! I wonder where the heck my thruput is going then? Guess I'd
better start doing drive tests before I start hacking around with the
LAN. Glad you pointed me in the right direction, thanks!

Mike-

--
I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos.
-- Albert Einstein, in _Observer_, 1954
"Because it's harder to cheat with dice than with cards."
-- M.W. Cocke, 2004
--
Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have installed site-wide spam filters at catherders.com. If
email from you bounces, try non-HTML, non-encoded, non-attachments.

Op Thu, 05 Aug 2004 10:24:18 -0400 schreef Michael W Cocke:

> On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 10:29:14 +0200, Gerard Wassink <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>Op Wed, 04 Aug 2004 17:48:16 -0400 schreef Michael W Cocke:
>>
>>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 19:12:03 GMT, Juha Laiho <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Michael W Cocke <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>>>This may sound crazy, but is there a way to put 2 nics (in a Suse 9.1
>>>>>system) on the same local network and have them both used, like in
>>>>>load splitting? I'm bottlenecking badly and trying to think of a way
>>>>>to increase thruput (I'm on gigabit already, and fiber is NOT in the
>>>>>budget).
>>>>
>>>>If your switch supports it, "channel bonding" (aka etherchannel in
>>>>Cisco terminology, aka trunking in Sun terminology, aka teaming in
>>>>I-don't-remember-this-vendor terminology) could be a solution (though
>>>>I've only seen references to bonding w/100Mbit channels; I'm not
>>>>quite certain if it's available for 1Gbps channels.
>>>>
>>>>Btw, have you checked that your system bus can handle two 1Gbps NICs
>>>>in parallel? See, 1Gbps=125Mbps and regular PCI bandwidth is 132Mbps.
>>>
>>> Well, this is just a potentially stupid idea I had, based on watching
>>> the drive lights on the two computers that need to be connected
>>> (They're mirror images). Just a guess, but I think if I could get
>>> more bandwidth in there I could speed things up. Nothing else is
>>> running over that wire (or the whole switch, for that matter) except
>>> the copy. Rsync is great if the systems are mostly in sync, but if
>>> it's a complete mismatch, I have to move 2 TB of data. 2 days for a
>>> full copy isn't cutting it.
>>>
>>> Mike-
>>>
>>> --
>>> If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.
>>
>>The latest IDE harddisks (like the Seagate Barracuda IV) have
>>throughputs of about 69MB/s.
>>
>>What kind of harddisks are you using?
>>What is their respective maximum throughput?
>>If controllers (in the case of SCSI) are in place, what is their maximum
>>throughput?
>
> All drives are ATA/133 IDE, running UDMA 6 mode. Each system has 11
> 250 Gb drives LVMd together into 1 filesystem.
>
>>In short: are you sure that the bandwidth really *is* your problem? I
>>tink it isn't.
>
> I honestly don't know - you've given me some more things to think
> about and test.
>
>>I mean: 2 TB sure *is* a lot of data but after a bit of basic arithmetic
>>I came to the following conclusion:
>>
>>2,19902E+12 = 2Tb (your total amount of data)
>>45812984491 / hour (2Tb / 48 hours)
>>763549741,5 / minute (amount / hour divided by 60)
>>12725829,03 / second (and again by 60)
>>
>>So your are getting an average throughput (over those two days) of
>>12,7Mb per second, which is fractionally more than one / tenth of the
>>possible 125Mb that is possible with one 1Gb NIC...
>
> Oooof! I wonder where the heck my thruput is going then? Guess I'd
> better start doing drive tests before I start hacking around with the
> LAN. Glad you pointed me in the right direction, thanks!
>
> Mike-
>
> --
> I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos.
> -- Albert Einstein, in _Observer_, 1954
> "Because it's harder to cheat with dice than with cards."
> -- M.W. Cocke, 2004

Well, actually, what you *could* try is to start 11 parallel processes,
one on each disk. They are all clearly mounted on some point, right?
(and hopefully, the systems are *real* mirror images in that respect
too)

This would help increasing your throughput if you are not doing so
already...

Let us know...

--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Gerard Wassink http://linux.family.filternet.nl
http://freeware.family.filternet.nl
Linux counter #360967, "In a world without fences, who needs gates?"