I have two servers connected using 2 nics to a RB750G. I have the following port switch configuration:
EHTER0: WAN LINK
ETHER1: MASTER-PORT (SERVER1 - NIC0) IP 10.0.0.1
EHTER2: SLAVE-ETHER1 (SERVER1 - NIC1)
EHTER3: SLAVE-ETHER1 (SERVER2 - NIC0)
EHTER4: SLAVE-ETHER1 (SERVER2 - NIC1)
I try to bond ETHER1 AND ETHER2. I remove ether2 as slave of ether1 on the switch configuration, then went to BONDING tab, add new bond (802.3ad) and defined ether1 and ether2 as slaves (for some reason the primary field was grey out). Finally, I assigned an IP to the bonding interface.
The bond interface seems to have traffic, but I was unable to ping neither ether3 or ether4. Ether3 and Ether lost their master, so I configure them with MASTER-PORT: NONE on the switch.
I dont understand what you are asking. You bonded ether1 and ether2, and from the diagram, you have the ip on ether1?
First, I cant say how well bonding will work as it is done in software and ether1-ether4 are on the same switch chip, you really wouldnt gain (more likely lose) speed. I take it the servers support bonding? There is no primary interface in 802.3ad. Its Link Aggregation, it just uses both if they are available.
I use it on my RB1000 to the switch, but not for speed, just redundancy if one of the ports on the router or switch go wacky. Works great.
PS: Just reread it. You cant have ether3/4 be slaves of ether1 if it is bonded. If you want ether1/ether2 as bond0 and ether3/ether4 as bond1 to pass ethernet packets to each other, remove all ports from the switch group and add them to a bridge. But the likeliness of being able to pass 2gbit of traffic through software bridge is pretty slim on a 750G.
I was just presenting how it’s working today. My idea was to bound ether1+ether2 (server1) and ether3+ether4 (server2) to increase throughput on file transfers between the servers.
Do you think that’s not a good option in terms of performance?
Just get a decent switch and not something that is marketed as SOHO. Mikrotik’s gear is fantastic but if I needed a high performance aggregated link I would get a dedicated switching platform that can do that in hardware, just like roadracer96 said. The link aggregation will happen in software on an RB750G, and that isn’t going to perform well.
This is a 10 users network using 2 servers with around 5 o 6 virtual machines on each + internet services. I do not require a high speed network but I just want to make the most of the rb750g.
Today, I have the virtual machines manually balanced across the different network adapters. I dont have performance problems, but transfering large virtual machines (60gb) from one server to another takes some time…
For the replies I get, bounding on this switch will not get me a performance improvment between the servers. Is that correct?
If you buy decent hardware and install ROS on it, you can get decent bonding performance. But that hardware is probably going to cost more than a decent switch that can do 802.3ad. And if you need to hook up a server within a local network with bonding it makes more sense to do it on a switch that will also improve performance for other clients than directly on the router.
That said, you do have a pretty sweet setup there.
