System Administration & Network Administration
networking nfs switch server-message-block bonding
Updated Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:26:27 GMT

Does Bonding mode 0 works on Cisco SG100 and achieve 2GB speed for NFS?


I am planing to buy a switcher to link 2 servers each with 2 NICs (Intel Corporation I350 Gigabit Network Connection).

I read that "balance-rr is the only mode were one single TCP connection can actually reach 2 Gb/s" in Does linux balance-rr (bond mode=0) work with all switches? . And it also says "actually balance-rr and balance-xor works just fine without any further switch configuration on any other switches than Cisco".

So, will Cisco SG100 work for balance-rr or I have to choose either SG200 or other Unmanaged Switches like D-link DGS-1024T ?

I think NFS should use 1 connections for each file request, so even if I choose other bonding modes(2,4,5,6), in reality the speed will still faster than 1GB/s when I cp files between 2 Servers. Is this right ?

Also, I wonder whether Samba will suffered for windows clients as that post says "CIFS doesn't play well with balance-rr".




Solution

The Cisco SG100 switch is an unmanaged switch so will behave just the same as any other unmanaged switch. Most Cisco switches are managed.

Looking at the Linux foundation website you will need a switch which supports etherchannel

In the basic balance modes (balance-rr and balance-xor), it works with any system that supports etherchannel (also called trunking). Most managed switches currently available have such support, and many unmanaged switches as well.





Comments (4)

  • +0 – Would you show me some examples for "many unmanaged switches as well" that supports etherchannel/trunking ? I googled and found none. — Dec 28, 2012 at 14:19  
  • +0 – I am not aware of any myself as I have always done etherchannel on managed Cisco switches — Dec 28, 2012 at 14:32  
  • +0Cisco SG200 supports "Port grouping" (LACP), does this mean it support balance-rr ? cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps11229/… — Dec 28, 2012 at 14:37  
  • +0 – That should work, you would need to enable port grouping on the ports the server is plugged in to — Dec 28, 2012 at 14:54