Layer 4 EtherChannel Load Balancing
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Miguel Sanders on August 9, 2008, 8:21 am
Please log in for more thread options Hello all I am currently using Cisco 3750E StackWise+ Switches. However, it seems that this type of switch only supports layer 2 (MAC address - src/dest/src and dest) and layer 3 (IP address- src/dest/src and dest) hashing possibilities concerning EtherChannel load balancing. Is there an (affordable compared to the 3750E) switch available which supports layer 4 (TCP port - src/dest/src and dest) etherchannel load balancing? Thanks a lot! Miguel | ||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Brian V on August 9, 2008, 10:37 am
Please log in for more thread options 4500 series minimum. Thats certainly more expensive the the 3700 series. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk213/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094714.shtml Is there a reason you specifically need layer 4? Only reason I really see is for it is multiple services on a server that are max'ing out, i.e email and web on a single server with email taking 100% of the bandwidth. If thats the case, it's cheaper just to add more servers and break out the services on to individual servers. -Brian | ||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Miguel Sanders on August 9, 2008, 11:24 am
Please log in for more thread options
>
> > > Hello all
>
> > I am currently using Cisco 3750E StackWise+ Switches. However, it
> > seems that this type of switch only supports layer 2 (MAC address - > > src/dest/src and dest) and layer 3 (IP address- src/dest/src and dest) > > hashing possibilities concerning EtherChannel load balancing. Is there > > an (affordable compared to the 3750E) switch available which supports > > layer 4 (TCP port - src/dest/src and dest) etherchannel load > > balancing? >
> > Thanks a lot!
>
> > Miguel
>
series.http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk213/technologies_tech_note091...
> 4500 series minimum. Thats certainly more expensive the the 3700 >
> Is there a reason you specifically need layer 4? Only reason I really see is > for it is multiple services on a server that are max'ing out, i.e email and > web on a single server with email taking 100% of the bandwidth. If thats the > case, it's cheaper just to add more servers and break out the services on to > individual servers. > > -Brian Well let me explain the background of this question: Server A (TSM client) needs to backup to Server B (TSM server) over Ethernet. Server A can have multiple TSM sessions to server B, resulting in multiple tape mounts. Furthermore each TSM session corresponds to one TCP session. Server A and Server B both have a layer 4 EtherChannel defined of 4 interfaces in which the hashing is based on source and destination ports. So this means that, whenever Server A starts 2 TSM sessions to Server B (= 2 TCP sessions resulting in 2 tape mounts), the EtherChannel on server A will balance the load on two switchports (given the used hashing algorithm). Unfortunately, since my 3750E only allows layer 2 and layer 3 EtherChannel load balancing, all load will be placed on the same physical port of server B's EtherChannel, only resulting in a maximum throughput of only 1 Gbit/s for server A. Ofcourse, whenever another server (f.e. server C) starts a TCP session with server B, it is likely (75% chance) that it will use another port of Server B's EtherChannel... Bottom line is that Server A will never get a bandwidth higher than 1 Gbit/s no matter how many TCP sessions is starts with Server B. Do you understand the problem? Thnx a lot! | ||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Thrill5 on August 9, 2008, 7:22 pm
Please log in for more thread options
I don't know of any switch that supports the type of EtherChanneling you need. How about installing 10Gb/s cards in the two servers and connecting them back to back? >>
>> >> > Hello all
>>
>> > I am currently using Cisco 3750E StackWise+ Switches. However, it
>> > seems that this type of switch only supports layer 2 (MAC address - >> > src/dest/src and dest) and layer 3 (IP address- src/dest/src and dest) >> > hashing possibilities concerning EtherChannel load balancing. Is there >> > an (affordable compared to the 3750E) switch available which supports >> > layer 4 (TCP port - src/dest/src and dest) etherchannel load >> > balancing? >>
>> > Thanks a lot!
>>
>> > Miguel
>>
series.http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk213/technologies_tech_note091...
>> 4500 series minimum. Thats certainly more expensive the the 3700 >> >>
>> Is there a reason you specifically need layer 4? Only reason I really see >> is >> for it is multiple services on a server that are max'ing out, i.e email >> and >> web on a single server with email taking 100% of the bandwidth. If thats >> the >> case, it's cheaper just to add more servers and break out the services on >> to >> individual servers. >> >> -Brian >
> Well let me explain the background of this question: > > Server A (TSM client) needs to backup to Server B (TSM server) over > Ethernet. Server A can have multiple TSM sessions to server B, > resulting in multiple tape mounts. Furthermore each TSM session > corresponds to one TCP session. > Server A and Server B both have a layer 4 EtherChannel defined of 4 > interfaces in which the hashing is based on source and destination > ports. > So this means that, whenever Server A starts 2 TSM sessions to Server > B (= 2 TCP sessions resulting in 2 tape mounts), the EtherChannel on > server A will balance the load on two switchports (given the used > hashing algorithm). Unfortunately, since my 3750E only allows layer 2 > and layer 3 EtherChannel load balancing, all load will be placed on > the same physical port of server B's EtherChannel, only resulting in a > maximum throughput of only 1 Gbit/s for server A. Ofcourse, whenever > another server (f.e. server C) starts a TCP session with server B, it > is likely (75% chance) that it will use another port of Server B's > EtherChannel... > Bottom line is that Server A will never get a bandwidth higher than 1 > Gbit/s no matter how many TCP sessions is starts with Server B. > > Do you understand the problem? > > Thnx a lot! | ||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Miguel Sanders on August 10, 2008, 6:30 am
Please log in for more thread options
> I don't know of any switch that supports the type of EtherChanneling you
ing
> need. =A0How about installing 10Gb/s cards in the two servers and connect= > them back to back?
.
> > > > > > >
> >> > Hello all
>
> >> > I am currently using Cisco 3750E StackWise+ Switches. However, it
t)
> >> > seems that this type of switch only supports layer 2 (MAC address - > >> > src/dest/src and dest) and layer 3 (IP address- src/dest/src and des= > >> > hashing possibilities concerning EtherChannel load balancing. Is the=
re
> >> > an (affordable compared to the 3750E) switch available which support=
s
> >> > layer 4 (TCP port - src/dest/src and dest) etherchannel load
> >> > balancing? >
> >> > Thanks a lot!
>
> >> > Miguel
>
> >> 4500 series minimum. Thats certainly more expensive the the 3700
ote091...
> >> series.http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk213/technologies_tech_n= >
> >> Is there a reason you specifically need layer 4? Only reason I really =
see
> >> is
l
> >> for it is multiple services on a server that are max'ing out, i.e emai= > >> and
ts
> >> web on a single server with email taking 100% of the bandwidth. If tha= > >> the
on
> >> case, it's cheaper just to add more servers and break out the services= > >> to
> >> individual servers. >
> >> -Brian
>
> > Well let me explain the background of this question:
>
> > Server A (TSM client) needs to backup to Server B (TSM server) over
> > Ethernet. Server A can have multiple TSM sessions to server B, > > resulting in multiple tape mounts. Furthermore each TSM session > > corresponds to one TCP session. > > Server A and Server B both have a layer 4 EtherChannel defined of 4 > > interfaces in which the hashing is based on source and destination > > ports. > > So this means that, whenever Server A starts 2 TSM sessions to Server > > B (=3D 2 TCP sessions resulting in 2 tape mounts), the EtherChannel on > > server A will balance the load on two switchports (given the used > > hashing algorithm). Unfortunately, since my 3750E only allows layer 2 > > and layer 3 EtherChannel load balancing, all load will be placed on > > the same physical port of server B's EtherChannel, only resulting in a > > maximum throughput of only 1 Gbit/s for server A. Ofcourse, whenever > > another server (f.e. server C) starts a TCP session with server B, it > > is likely (75% chance) that it will use another port of Server B's > > EtherChannel... > > Bottom line is that Server A will never get a bandwidth higher than 1 > > Gbit/s no matter how many TCP sessions is starts with Server B. >
> > Do you understand the problem?
>
> > Thnx a lot!- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - If I look at the 4500 series, it is capable of examining the TCP traffic and do load balancing based on src/destination TCP ports. However, as already stated, this is an expensive solution and I think I will look after something else. Unfortunatele, the 10 Gbps ports are already used for uplinks. | ||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Layer 4 EtherChannel Load Balancing | August 9, 2008, 8:21 am |
| EtherChannel Load Balancing - per packet? | August 22, 2005, 5:41 am |
| Layer 3 Etherchannel Issue | September 16, 2008, 10:27 am |
| Load Balancing / Load Sharing over parallel paths | November 21, 2005, 9:14 am |
| Load Balancing | February 15, 2005, 6:13 pm |
| load-balancing t1s | August 30, 2005, 2:54 pm |
| Load Balancing | February 20, 2006, 11:33 am |
| OER and load balancing | March 2, 2006, 10:06 am |
| load balancing | January 3, 2007, 8:35 pm |
| load-balancing t1s | February 16, 2007, 1:43 pm |
| To QoS or load-balancing or both | July 21, 2008, 5:35 pm |
| Load Balancing NxSTM1s | August 23, 2005, 10:36 pm |
| RV042 and pix with load balancing | October 12, 2005, 9:01 am |
| Load Balancing 2 Routes | October 17, 2005, 8:08 am |
| Re: BGP and load balancing two routers | October 17, 2005, 10:48 am |
>
> I am currently using Cisco 3750E StackWise+ Switches. However, it
> seems that this type of switch only supports layer 2 (MAC address -
> src/dest/src and dest) and layer 3 (IP address- src/dest/src and dest)
> hashing possibilities concerning EtherChannel load balancing. Is there
> an (affordable compared to the 3750E) switch available which supports
> layer 4 (TCP port - src/dest/src and dest) etherchannel load
> balancing?
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
> Miguel