03-23-2007 08:39 AM
I have two link between to locations each of 16MB..
We are using SDM link between to router.
COnfig on router 1
====================
ip cef
inte gig0/1
ip ADDRESS 1.1.1.1 25.0.0.0
ip load shareing per-packet
no ip proxy-arp
no ip mroute-cache
no autonegotiation
load-interval 30
dulpex full
speed 100
media type RJ45
inte gig0/0
ip ADDRESS 2.2.2.1 25.0.0.0
ip load shareing per-packet
no ip proxy-arp
no ip mroute-cache
no autonegotiation
load-interval 30
dulpex full
speed 100
media type RJ45
ip route 172.16.2.0 255.255.255.0 1.1.1.2
ip route 172.16.2.0 255.255.255.0 2.2.2.2
===================
COnfig on router2
===================
ip cef
inte gig0/1
ip ADDRESS 1.1.1.2 25.0.0.0
ip load shareing per-packet
no ip proxy-arp
no ip mroute-cache
no autonegotiation
load-interval 30
dulpex full
speed 100
media type RJ45
inte gig0/0
ip ADDRESS 2.2.2.2 25.0.0.0
ip load shareing per-packet
no ip proxy-arp
no ip mroute-cache
no autonegotiation
load-interval 30
dulpex full
speed 100
media type RJ45
ip route 172.16.1.0 255.255.255.0 1.1.1.1
ip route 172.16.1.0 255.255.255.0 2.2.2.1
Now with this config...
When i m doing FTP(20 MB) from host A to Host B then i geting very low threwput on both link....i m geting aound 20%
therwput.
If i remove one link then i m geting 100% thoughput on the remained link.
PLease let me know where is root cause of problem ?If u are haveing any alternate solutions for same (to load balance )let me know.
===========Please see attachment for Toplogy=========
03-23-2007 11:16 AM
Hi!
Let me see your:
1) show ip cef 172.16.1.0 detail
2) show ip cef gig 0/0 detail
show ip cef gig 0/1 detail
3) show ip int gig 0/0
show ip int gig 0/1
Also, the cause of low throughput might be the process switching mode on one the interfaces, please check if you are experiencing high CPU utilization during ftp transfer.
03-25-2007 09:31 PM
03-26-2007 01:54 AM
Hi!
Unfortunately this output isn't enough to solve your issue.
I've tried your scenario on emulator: "show" commands show that load balancing was activated, but I can't say for sure if this actually works.
Try to get output of commands I've posted you before.
04-08-2007 07:49 AM
Hi Kypamop,
Everything seems fine on seeing your partial configuration. Go thro. this below mentioned troubleshooting guide which may tell u the root cause of this probs.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk827/tk831/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094806.shtml#verifyload
Rate if it does,
Rgs
04-09-2007 08:33 PM
Ganpat
When I see that someone is configuring load sharing to do per packet load balancing I am concerned about the impact of out of order packets. While I do not know for sure if this is the cause of your problem I would suggest that you investigate this possibility.
Is it possible to get some protocol analyzer (Sniffer/Ethereal/etc) to capture and analyze this traffic? If so run the transfer and look for retransmissions/lost packets.
If it is not possible to do a packet capture there are a couple of things that might be helpful in the investigation on the router. Configure the load interval on all 4 interfaces to the minimum value. Then I would suggest that you transfer the same file several times (once with both links active, once with only one link, and once with only the other link). I would suggest doing clear interface counters before each transfer, and then show interface commands several times while each transfer is being done, and then at the end of each transfer. I would look at the total number of packets transferred and check to see if the total packets was the same when both links are used as the number of packets when a single link is used. If the number of packets is larger when both links are used then it is probably a sign of packet loss and retransmission.
I would also look at the show interface output done while that transfer is being done on the two single links. I would look at the number of bytes per second being transferred. Are the same number of bytes being transfer over link 1 as are transferred over link 2? If there is much difference in number of bytes per second there there is some performance difference between the links and this could lead to out of order packets, packet loss, packet retransmission, and worse performance with both links are in use.
HTH
Rick
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide