From: Alan Kong (kkkong@ee.cuhk.edu.hk)
Date: Wed Sep 07 2005 - 05:41:55 EDT
Dear Managers,
Sorry I should have used a better word load spreading instead of load
balancing. There was a funny pattern observed on the 2 network ports
that while there was network traffic on one network port, there was
nearly nil on the other and vice versa. I would have expected there
would be network traffic on both network ports (NICs) if load spreading
was achived.
Did anyone has the same pattern observed? There was no problem on failover.
Thank you.
Regards
Alan
Alan Kong wrote:
> Dear Managers,
>
> We have IP Multipathing setup on 2 NICs on a Sun V240 server and
> observed load balancing was not working.
>
> Our network monitoring(MRTG) program on the 2 network ports on
> different switches have network traffic recorded. When there was
> traffic recorded on one NIC, there appeared to be no network traffic
> on the other NIC. This lasted for about an hour and the network
> traffic switched over to the other NIC. The switch over of network
> traffic on both NICs repeated on an hourly fasion.
>
> Evironment:
> - Solaris 2.8 running on V240 server in NIS+ environment
> - Both logical addresses have been added to DNS and NIS+ host table
>
> /etc/hostname.bge0:
> v240server-bge0 netmask + broadcast + group production deprecated
> -failover up
> addif v240server netmask + broadcast + failover up
>
> /etc/hostname.bge1:
> v240server-bge1 netmask + broadcast + group production deprecated
> -failover up
> addif v240server-dum netmask + broadcast + failover up
>
> Both network ports were running GBits. Applications and users uses
> v240server address.
>
> Please advise on solving the problem and whether IP Multipathing works
> in NIS+ environment since only one host address (v240server) was added
> to the NIS+ cred table.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Regards
> Alan Kong
_______________________________________________
sunmanagers mailing list
sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagers
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Wed Apr 09 2008 - 23:31:34 EDT