Load balancing two Ethernet ports - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Load balancing two Ethernet ports - Ubuntu ; A lot of servers that I manage, have two ethernet ports. eth0 and eth1. My question is, would there be any benefits if somehow I could manage to use both Ethernet ports in a way that is transparent to applications, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Load balancing two Ethernet ports

  1. Load balancing two Ethernet ports

    A lot of servers that I manage, have two ethernet ports. eth0 and
    eth1.

    My question is, would there be any benefits if somehow I could manage
    to use both Ethernet ports in a way that is transparent to
    applications, maybe by spreading the networking load across them or
    smoe such?

    --
    Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
    to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
    from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
    more readers you will need to find a different means of
    posting on Usenet.
    http://improve-usenet.org/

  2. Re: Load balancing two Ethernet ports

    Ignoramus22222 wrote:
    > A lot of servers that I manage, have two ethernet ports. eth0 and
    > eth1.
    >
    > My question is, would there be any benefits if somehow I could manage
    > to use both Ethernet ports in a way that is transparent to
    > applications, maybe by spreading the networking load across them or
    > smoe such?
    >


    Look up ethernet bonding if you are interested.
    I think it's probably a waste of time.

  3. Re: Load balancing two Ethernet ports

    At Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:01:56 -0500 Ignoramus22222 wrote:

    >
    > A lot of servers that I manage, have two ethernet ports. eth0 and
    > eth1.
    >
    > My question is, would there be any benefits if somehow I could manage
    > to use both Ethernet ports in a way that is transparent to
    > applications, maybe by spreading the networking load across them or
    > smoe such?


    Yes. Using two gigi-bit ports, gives you 2 gigi-bits of bandwidth.

    >


    --
    Robert Heller -- Get the Deepwoods Software FireFox Toolbar!
    Deepwoods Software -- Linux Installation and Administration
    http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Web Hosting, with CGI and Database
    heller@deepsoft.com -- Contract Programming: C/C++, Tcl/Tk


  4. Re: Load balancing two Ethernet ports

    On 2008-08-01, Ignoramus22222 wrote:

    > A lot of servers that I manage, have two ethernet ports. eth0
    > and eth1.
    >
    > My question is, would there be any benefits if somehow I could
    > manage to use both Ethernet ports in a way that is transparent
    > to applications, maybe by spreading the networking load across
    > them or smoe such?


    No, there would be no benefit. According to my system logs
    none of your servers are maxing out their Ethernet bandwidth.

    --
    Grant Edwards grante Yow! Are we wet yet?
    at
    visi.com

  5. Re: Load balancing two Ethernet ports

    In comp.os.linux.misc Robert Heller wrote:
    > At Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:01:56 -0500 Ignoramus22222 wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> A lot of servers that I manage, have two ethernet ports. eth0 and
    >> eth1.
    >>
    >> My question is, would there be any benefits if somehow I could manage
    >> to use both Ethernet ports in a way that is transparent to
    >> applications, maybe by spreading the networking load across them or
    >> smoe such?

    >
    > Yes. Using two gigi-bit ports, gives you 2 gigi-bits of bandwidth.


    Most of the servers I am familar with two ethernet ports are designed
    to have one used as a backup, as they are both connected to the same
    bus. None of them had sufficent bus bandwith to actually drive two
    gigabit ethernets anywhere near full capacity. Indeed, depending on
    what else was on the bus the performance may be less than one gigabit
    interface.

    --
    Frank Stutzman



  6. Re: Load balancing two Ethernet ports

    Frank Stutzman wrote:
    > In comp.os.linux.misc Robert Heller wrote:
    >> At Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:01:56 -0500 Ignoramus22222 wrote:
    >>
    >>> A lot of servers that I manage, have two ethernet ports. eth0 and
    >>> eth1.
    >>>
    >>> My question is, would there be any benefits if somehow I could manage
    >>> to use both Ethernet ports in a way that is transparent to
    >>> applications, maybe by spreading the networking load across them or
    >>> smoe such?

    >> Yes. Using two gigi-bit ports, gives you 2 gigi-bits of bandwidth.

    >
    > Most of the servers I am familar with two ethernet ports are designed
    > to have one used as a backup, as they are both connected to the same
    > bus. None of them had sufficent bus bandwith to actually drive two
    > gigabit ethernets anywhere near full capacity. Indeed, depending on
    > what else was on the bus the performance may be less than one gigabit
    > interface.
    >

    On mine, I have multiple PCI-X busses. The only thing on the PCI-X bus on my
    machine is the Adaptec dual gigabit LAN controller (AIC-7902 chip). This is
    on a bus provided by one of two channels on an Intel P64H2 chip. (There is
    also a PCI-X socket on the MB, but nothing is plugged in there.

    Funny, since the other machine on my LAN has a 100 MHz NIC in it, which
    probably does not tax this much. ;-)

    ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:03:02.0[A] -> GSI 28 (level, low) -> IRQ 66
    e1000: 0000:03:02.0: e1000_probe: (PCI-X:133MHz:64-bit) 00:30:48:29:1d:5e
    e1000: eth1: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection
    ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:03:02.1[B] -> GSI 29 (level, low) -> IRQ 74
    e1000: 0000:03:02.1: e1000_probe: (PCI-X:133MHz:64-bit) 00:30:48:29:1d:5f
    e1000: eth2: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection

    These are 64-bits wide and run at 133 MHz. They go through the ICH chip that
    runs at 533MHz and is 64 bits wide (runs pairs 32 bits wide at 266 MHz
    PC2100 memory modules).


    --
    .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
    /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
    /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
    ^^-^^ 12:45:01 up 2 days, 16:38, 4 users, load average: 4.43, 4.35, 4.28

  7. Re: Load balancing two Ethernet ports

    On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:30:28 -0500, Robert Heller wrote:
    >At Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:01:56 -0500 Ignoramus22222 wrote:


    >>
    >> A lot of servers that I manage, have two ethernet ports. eth0 and
    >> eth1.
    >>
    >> My question is, would there be any benefits if somehow I could manage
    >> to use both Ethernet ports in a way that is transparent to
    >> applications, maybe by spreading the networking load across them or
    >> smoe such?


    >Yes. Using two gigi-bit ports, gives you 2 gigi-bits of bandwidth.


    Only if you run independant networks.
    Obviously you're not going to get 2gb/s if you plug them into the same
    switch.


  8. Re: Load balancing two Ethernet ports

    Ignoramus22222 wrote:
    > A lot of servers that I manage, have two ethernet ports. eth0 and
    > eth1.
    >
    > My question is, would there be any benefits if somehow I could manage
    > to use both Ethernet ports in a way that is transparent to
    > applications, maybe by spreading the networking load across them or
    > smoe such?
    >

    not unless you have two physically distinct networks, no,since most
    machines can keep up with a full speed LAN these days.

  9. Re: Load balancing two Ethernet ports

    Robert Heller wrote:
    > At Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:01:56 -0500 Ignoramus22222 wrote:
    >
    >> A lot of servers that I manage, have two ethernet ports. eth0 and
    >> eth1.
    >>
    >> My question is, would there be any benefits if somehow I could manage
    >> to use both Ethernet ports in a way that is transparent to
    >> applications, maybe by spreading the networking load across them or
    >> smoe such?

    >
    > Yes. Using two gigi-bit ports, gives you 2 gigi-bits of bandwidth.
    >
    >

    into one giga bit of network.

  10. Re: Load balancing two Ethernet ports

    The Natural Philosopher writes:

    >Ignoramus22222 wrote:
    >> A lot of servers that I manage, have two ethernet ports. eth0 and
    >> eth1.
    >>
    >> My question is, would there be any benefits if somehow I could manage
    >> to use both Ethernet ports in a way that is transparent to
    >> applications, maybe by spreading the networking load across them or
    >> smoe such?
    >>

    >not unless you have two physically distinct networks, no,since most
    >machines can keep up with a full speed LAN these days.


    I believe you meant "cannot". On my systems, the disk can only be read in a
    continuous fashion at about 60MB/s and since a gigabit line is 140GB/s, the
    disk simply cannot keep up. On another machine, if I do rsync over ssh, the
    ssh encryption pushes the cpu to 100% and the rate is still only 25MB/s,
    way under the limit. Ie, a Gb network card is basically faster than the
    computer.

  11. Re: Load balancing two Ethernet ports

    In comp.os.linux.misc Unruh wrote:
    >
    > I believe you meant "cannot". On my systems, the disk can only be read in a
    > continuous fashion at about 60MB/s and since a gigabit line is 140GB/s, the


    umm, even assuming that you slipped a few digits and meant 140MB/s, there's
    no possible way to get 140MB/s on a gigabit line.

    Even if there were zero overhead and gigabit line could really do 1Gb/s
    that's only 125MB/s.

    If you are getting 60MB/s you're at half of the unattainable hypothetical
    maximum-- which is pretty good actually.

    Or are you being limited by your disk and not your network, in which case
    you would want to start by looking at faster disks. After all, no point
    in beating down the wrong problem.

    Look end to end and find your bottleneck-- then start looking for fix.

    Stan

    --
    Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
    www.worldbadminton.com

  12. Re: Load balancing two Ethernet ports

    stan@worldbadminton.com writes:

    >In comp.os.linux.misc Unruh wrote:
    >>
    >> I believe you meant "cannot". On my systems, the disk can only be read in a
    >> continuous fashion at about 60MB/s and since a gigabit line is 140GB/s, the


    >umm, even assuming that you slipped a few digits and meant 140MB/s, there's
    >no possible way to get 140MB/s on a gigabit line.


    Sorry it is MB not GB of course.

    Well, I have gotten up to about 14MB/s on a 100 Mb/s line. I suspect that
    that 1000Mb/s is only an approximation.

    But lets go with your 120MB/s, I do not really care.




    >Even if there were zero overhead and gigabit line could really do 1Gb/s
    >that's only 125MB/s.


    >If you are getting 60MB/s you're at half of the unattainable hypothetical
    >maximum-- which is pretty good actually.


    >Or are you being limited by your disk and not your network, in which case
    >you would want to start by looking at faster disks. After all, no point
    >in beating down the wrong problem.


    In my case that also comes close to the disk speeda (hdparm -t gives
    91MB/s)





    >Look end to end and find your bottleneck-- then start looking for fix.


    No fix needed for me. Mine were illustrations of what one could get on a Gb
    line, and to suggest that thinking your could get 240MB/s by using two Gb
    lines is dreaming.
    Ie, one GB line pretty well maxes out what a computer can transfer.



  13. Re: Load balancing two Ethernet ports

    Unruh wrote:
    > The Natural Philosopher writes:
    >
    >> Ignoramus22222 wrote:
    >>> A lot of servers that I manage, have two ethernet ports. eth0 and
    >>> eth1.
    >>>
    >>> My question is, would there be any benefits if somehow I could manage
    >>> to use both Ethernet ports in a way that is transparent to
    >>> applications, maybe by spreading the networking load across them or
    >>> smoe such?
    >>>

    >> not unless you have two physically distinct networks, no,since most
    >> machines can keep up with a full speed LAN these days.

    >
    > I believe you meant "cannot". On my systems, the disk can only be read in a
    > continuous fashion at about 60MB/s and since a gigabit line is 140GB/s, the
    > disk simply cannot keep up. On another machine, if I do rsync over ssh, the
    > ssh encryption pushes the cpu to 100% and the rate is still only 25MB/s,
    > way under the limit. Ie, a Gb network card is basically faster than the
    > computer.


    My hard drives are a little faster:

    # /sbin/hdparm -t /dev/sda
    /dev/sda:
    Timing buffered disk reads: 250 MB in 3.02 seconds = 82.72 MB/sec

    # /sbin/hdparm -t /dev/sdb
    /dev/sdb:
    Timing buffered disk reads: 252 MB in 3.00 seconds = 83.91 MB/sec

    So I could not manage it, even if I used a separate hard drive for each
    port. But I imagine that if instead of writing the stuff to disk, I just
    checksummed it of something, I should be able to keep up with dual (or more)
    processors.

    --
    .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
    /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
    /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
    ^^-^^ 21:30:01 up 22 min, 5 users, load average: 5.13, 4.83, 3.46

  14. Re: Load balancing two Ethernet ports

    Unruh wrote:
    > The Natural Philosopher writes:
    >
    >> Ignoramus22222 wrote:
    >>> A lot of servers that I manage, have two ethernet ports. eth0 and
    >>> eth1.
    >>>
    >>> My question is, would there be any benefits if somehow I could manage
    >>> to use both Ethernet ports in a way that is transparent to
    >>> applications, maybe by spreading the networking load across them or
    >>> smoe such?
    >>>

    >> not unless you have two physically distinct networks, no,since most
    >> machines can keep up with a full speed LAN these days.

    >
    > I believe you meant "cannot".


    No, I ment CAN.

    twin disks and a bit more cache will get the disk data rate up ;-)

    > On my systems, the disk can only be read in a
    > continuous fashion at about 60MB/s and since a gigabit line is 140GB/s, the
    > disk simply cannot keep up. On another machine, if I do rsync over ssh, the
    > ssh encryption pushes the cpu to 100% and the rate is still only 25MB/s,
    > way under the limit. Ie, a Gb network card is basically faster than the
    > computer.


  15. Re: Load balancing two Ethernet ports

    The Natural Philosopher writes:

    >Unruh wrote:
    >> The Natural Philosopher writes:
    >>
    >>> Ignoramus22222 wrote:
    >>>> A lot of servers that I manage, have two ethernet ports. eth0 and
    >>>> eth1.
    >>>>
    >>>> My question is, would there be any benefits if somehow I could manage
    >>>> to use both Ethernet ports in a way that is transparent to
    >>>> applications, maybe by spreading the networking load across them or
    >>>> smoe such?
    >>>>
    >>> not unless you have two physically distinct networks, no,since most
    >>> machines can keep up with a full speed LAN these days.

    >>
    >> I believe you meant "cannot".


    >No, I ment CAN.


    >twin disks and a bit more cache will get the disk data rate up ;-)


    cache does not help except in the very short term and if what is wanted
    happens to be in cache. "keep up" to me means
    long term.

    >> On my systems, the disk can only be read in a
    >> continuous fashion at about 60MB/s and since a gigabit line is 140GB/s, the
    >> disk simply cannot keep up. On another machine, if I do rsync over ssh, the
    >> ssh encryption pushes the cpu to 100% and the rate is still only 25MB/s,
    >> way under the limit. Ie, a Gb network card is basically faster than the
    >> computer.


  16. Re: Load balancing two Ethernet ports

    Unruh wrote:
    > The Natural Philosopher writes:
    >
    >> Unruh wrote:
    >>> The Natural Philosopher writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Ignoramus22222 wrote:
    >>>>> A lot of servers that I manage, have two ethernet ports. eth0 and
    >>>>> eth1.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> My question is, would there be any benefits if somehow I could manage
    >>>>> to use both Ethernet ports in a way that is transparent to
    >>>>> applications, maybe by spreading the networking load across them or
    >>>>> smoe such?
    >>>>>
    >>>> not unless you have two physically distinct networks, no,since most
    >>>> machines can keep up with a full speed LAN these days.
    >>> I believe you meant "cannot".

    >
    >> No, I ment CAN.

    >
    >> twin disks and a bit more cache will get the disk data rate up ;-)

    >
    > cache does not help except in the very short term and if what is wanted
    > happens to be in cache. "keep up" to me means
    > long term.
    >


    Cache does help when pulling a lot of stuff of various places on a
    disk..generally actual data read times are pretty fast:its when the head
    has to skip to different cylinders things get slower. Read ahead caching
    often means the next bit you need is in ram already..


  17. Re: Load balancing two Ethernet ports

    ["Followup-To:" nach alt.os.linux.ubuntu gesetzt.]
    On 2008-08-01, Jean-David Beyer hit the keyboard and wrote:
    >




    > ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:03:02.0[A] -> GSI 28 (level, low) -> IRQ 66
    > e1000: 0000:03:02.0: e1000_probe: (PCI-X:133MHz:64-bit) 00:30:48:29:1d:5e
    > e1000: eth1: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection
    > ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:03:02.1[B] -> GSI 29 (level, low) -> IRQ 74
    > e1000: 0000:03:02.1: e1000_probe: (PCI-X:133MHz:64-bit) 00:30:48:29:1d:5f
    > e1000: eth2: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection
    >
    > These are 64-bits wide and run at 133 MHz. They go through the ICH chip that
    > runs at 533MHz and is 64 bits wide (runs pairs 32 bits wide at 266 MHz
    > PC2100 memory modules).


    Excuse my chiming in here, I see that you seem to have a similar
    NIC as I do.

    02:09.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82541PI Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 05)

    How much RAM do you have in the PC?

    I came across a Problem I only have on the 64bit OS (Ubuntu
    Studio 0.04.1) it's the "TX Unit hang bug/whatever". On my
    32bit the OS sees the 4GB of Ram just fine, but with the
    64bit version, if I append the line "mem=4096mb" (caps or no
    caps doesn't matter) to /boot/grub/menu.lst the "TX unit
    hang" will stop, but I've got only this much of memory:

    "free"

    total used free shared buffers cached
    Mem: 3031564 2777804 253760 0 59792 1984320
    -/+ buffers/cache: 733692 2297872
    Swap: 1020116 160 1019956

    I've downloaded the driver for e1000 and updated to version
    8.x.y. it didn't do a thing. Also I found a script that
    would adjust the EEPROM (a switch) and run it, but it
    returned the message that it was not applicable to the NIC
    in the PC. The same with "ethtool -K tso off eth0"

    Funny thing is I compiled a new kernel, with the same
    result, if I leave out the "mem=" I get the TX unit hang,
    but the OS sees then all 4 GB of RAM. If you'd know some
    easy fix? If not I'll just leave it as it is....and keep
    seaching. :-)


    >
    >




    Dragomir Kollaric
    --
    This signature is licensed under the GPL and may be
    freely distributed as long as a copy of the GPL is included... :-)


  18. Re: Load balancing two Ethernet ports

    On 8/4/2008 9:52 AM, Dragomir Kollaric wrote:
    > ["Followup-To:" nach alt.os.linux.ubuntu gesetzt.]
    > On 2008-08-01, Jean-David Beyer hit the keyboard and wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >> ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:03:02.0[A] -> GSI 28 (level, low) -> IRQ 66
    >> e1000: 0000:03:02.0: e1000_probe: (PCI-X:133MHz:64-bit) 00:30:48:29:1d:5e
    >> e1000: eth1: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection
    >> ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:03:02.1[B] -> GSI 29 (level, low) -> IRQ 74
    >> e1000: 0000:03:02.1: e1000_probe: (PCI-X:133MHz:64-bit) 00:30:48:29:1d:5f
    >> e1000: eth2: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection
    >>
    >> These are 64-bits wide and run at 133 MHz. They go through the ICH chip that
    >> runs at 533MHz and is 64 bits wide (runs pairs 32 bits wide at 266 MHz
    >> PC2100 memory modules).

    >
    > Excuse my chiming in here, I see that you seem to have a similar
    > NIC as I do.
    >
    > 02:09.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82541PI Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 05)
    >
    > How much RAM do you have in the PC?
    >
    > I came across a Problem I only have on the 64bit OS (Ubuntu
    > Studio 0.04.1) it's the "TX Unit hang bug/whatever". On my
    > 32bit the OS sees the 4GB of Ram just fine, but with the
    > 64bit version, if I append the line "mem=4096mb" (caps or no
    > caps doesn't matter) to /boot/grub/menu.lst the "TX unit
    > hang" will stop, but I've got only this much of memory:
    >
    > "free"
    >
    > total used free shared buffers cached
    > Mem: 3031564 2777804 253760 0 59792 1984320
    > -/+ buffers/cache: 733692 2297872
    > Swap: 1020116 160 1019956
    >
    > I've downloaded the driver for e1000 and updated to version
    > 8.x.y. it didn't do a thing. Also I found a script that
    > would adjust the EEPROM (a switch) and run it, but it
    > returned the message that it was not applicable to the NIC
    > in the PC. The same with "ethtool -K tso off eth0"
    >
    > Funny thing is I compiled a new kernel, with the same
    > result, if I leave out the "mem=" I get the TX unit hang,
    > but the OS sees then all 4 GB of RAM. If you'd know some
    > easy fix? If not I'll just leave it as it is....and keep
    > seaching. :-)
    >
    >
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    > Dragomir Kollaric


    DO you mind sharing with me how you config your 32-Bit OS to recognize
    4GB RAM? I am running Ubuntu 8.04. Although my system BIOS shows 4GB,
    OS just recognizes 3GB. TIA.

    P.S. Sorry for a little bit off topic.

  19. Re: Load balancing two Ethernet ports

    On 2008-08-04, Wing hit the keyboard and wrote:




    > DO you mind sharing with me how you config your 32-Bit OS to recognize
    > 4GB RAM? I am running Ubuntu 8.04. Although my system BIOS shows 4GB,
    > OS just recognizes 3GB. TIA.



    Hi :-)

    As long as the question(s) relates to GNU/Linux almost
    nothing is OT in these newsgroups.

    To answer your question, I installed a "server kernel" you
    can do so via Synaptic or apt-get. I'm not sure if you have
    then other problems, like missing sound or so. I had
    problems with the nvidia drivers and use for the time being
    "nv" when I do (which is seldom these days) the 32bit OS.

    HTH :-)


    >
    > P.S. Sorry for a little bit off topic.




    Dragomir Kollaric
    --
    This signature is licensed under the GPL and may be
    freely distributed as long as a copy of the GPL is included... :-)


  20. Re: Load balancing two Ethernet ports

    On 2008-08-01, timeOday wrote:
    > Ignoramus22222 wrote:
    >> A lot of servers that I manage, have two ethernet ports. eth0 and
    >> eth1.
    >>
    >> My question is, would there be any benefits if somehow I could manage
    >> to use both Ethernet ports in a way that is transparent to
    >> applications, maybe by spreading the networking load across them or
    >> smoe such?
    >>

    >
    > Look up ethernet bonding if you are interested.
    > I think it's probably a waste of time.


    It's not a waste of time at all, especially on a LAN that has full
    support for it. Teamed NICs are pretty much the standard for servers
    in large corporations.

    I don't think we have a server in our company that does not have
    multiple NICs, teamed for failover over 2 separated network paths to
    allow for redundancy, though the technology can easily be used to
    allow for a nice speed increase as well, if that suits your needs...


    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

+ Reply to Thread