[asterisk-users] Breaking news, but what happened? 11.000 channels on one server

[Peder]

You are thinking IP (layer3), not mac address (layer2 - ethernet switching).
Bonding is general a poor choice of wording for multiple Ethernet
connections as an individual connection won't use both links.  The way most
NIC's and switches do bonding is that they hash the source and destination
mac address and odd packets go over one link and even packets go over the
other (assuming two links).  So if there are two machines talking, they will
flood one link and the other will be empty.  If there are 100 machines
talking to one machine, then it will be fairly even balancing.  If the PBX
is behind a router or firewall, then it will see all external IPs as one mac
(the router or firewall), so you again will get one link saturated and one
empty.  Your best bet is 10G if you can afford it.

On a side note, why do people buy high-end servers like IBM or HP and then
put in crappy switches, like Dell or Netgear and then wonder why performance
is bad?  That's like buying a BMW 7 series and then using the cheapest 87
octane gas you can find.  If you want to build a good network, buy good
network equipment like Cisco, Extreme, Foundry or some of the other high end
manufacturers.  DLink, Linksys, Netgear and Dell are all low end consumer
grade.  No matter how they may try and sell it, that's what it is.  It is
fine for that, but it is not enterprise grade equipment.  I just ran across
a customer that had a Cisco Catalyst 4000 with an uptime of 1500 days (4+
years).  Try and get that with Linksys or Netgear.



-----Original Message-----
From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com
[mailto:asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of David
Backeberg
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 8:58 PM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Breaking news, but what happened? 11.000
channels on one server

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 12:50 PM, John A. Sullivan
III<jsullivan at opensourcedevel.com> wrote:
> You don't necessarily need a switch to support it.  One can use alb mode
> in Linux on any old switch and it works reasonably well other than for
> some excessive ARP traffic.  However, as we found out the hard way when
> building our Nexenta SAN, bonding works very well with many-to-many
> traffic but does very little to boost one-to-one network flows.  They
> will all collapse to the same pair of NICs in most scenarios and, in the
> one mode where they do not, packet sequencing issues will reduce the
> bandwidth to much less than the sum of the connections.  Take care -

Your claims make sense for a typical
Machine A has one IP address
Machine B has one IP address

And there is only one route between A and B. In this scenario, yes,
all calls take same route.

But what about giving each machine two addresses, two routes. And
halve your calls between the two paths between the same systems.
Doesn't this get around your problem, and allow you a chance to
saturate double the number of interfaces?

If you have four interfaces (as my new boxes do), lather, rinse,
repeat. Anybody have any reason why spreading the bandwidth across
multiple routes wouldn't get around this problem?

_______________________________________________
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

AstriCon 2009 - October 13 - 15 Phoenix, Arizona
Register Now: http://www.astricon.net

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users