Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:20:54 -0600 From: Josh Paetzel <josh@tcbug.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: "N. Harrington" <drumslayer2@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: How does one bond two interfaces together to share bandwidth? Message-ID: <200612131920.54630.josh@tcbug.org> In-Reply-To: <168E6D20-A6E1-458B-A1A5-80BAFD20598F@mac.com> References: <20061214010124.29818.qmail@web34502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <168E6D20-A6E1-458B-A1A5-80BAFD20598F@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 13 December 2006 19:08, Chuck Swiger wrote: > On Dec 13, 2006, at 5:01 PM, N. Harrington wrote: > > I have tried one way, however when I use it I seem to > > have an odd broadcast occuring on my switch. Such that > > I am seeing incoming traffic hit some other ports on > > the switch. Can someone confirm if I am doing it > > correctly? Perhaps I have a switch issue? > > Do I also need to bond the ports together on the > > switch? > > Yes, the switch would need to support Cisco's FEC protocol if you > want to use ng_fec with it. > > > Sadly the switch they are connected to does > > not support port bonding. Does that matter? > > Yep. In many cases, a single 100Mbs link does just fine, but if > you need more bandwidth, you can pick up a gigabit NIC nowadays for > not much. Picking up a GB-capable switch is more expensive, but > perhaps your existing switch might have one or a couple of GB > ports... Maybe ng_one2many would be of some use depending on the exact situation. -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200612131920.54630.josh>