From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: under-performing bonded interfaces Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 02:51:54 +0000 Message-ID: <1321498314.2885.78.camel@deadeye> References: <4EC44ECB.4050201@candelatech.com> <1321491449.2709.90.camel@bwh-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ben Greear , To: Simon Chen Return-path: Received: from exchange.solarflare.com ([216.237.3.220]:53061 "EHLO exchange.solarflare.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755101Ab1KQCwD (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:52:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 20:38 -0500, Simon Chen wrote: > Thanks, Ben. That's good discovery... > > Are you saying that both 10G NICs are on the same PCIe x4 slot, so > that they're subject to the 12G throughput bottleneck? I assumed you were using 2 ports on the same board, i.e. the same slot. If you were using 1 port each of 2 boards then I would have expected them both to be usable at full speed. So far as I can remember, PCIe bridges are usually set up so there isn't contention for bandwidth between slots. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.