![]() is nonegotiate really that necessary? Will changing the load-balancing method kill my etherchannels and cause network downtime? I know that fooling with switchport nonegotiate will probably kill the link for a few seconds. The problem is that I don't know if changing this on a production switch with multiple etherchannels (to other cisco switches and ESX nic teams) would cause an outage. I have a strong feeling that the user's complaints of slowness might be due to the fact that the global load-balancing method is set to src-dst-mac on the physical switch, and I would like to try it with src-dst-ip. I did a little more reading today and saw that some people recommend using "switchport nonegotiate" and "spanning-tree portfast trunk," as well as setting the global load-balancing method to src-dst-ip. On the ESX server side, we set up "Route on IP hash" and everything else as recommended by several sources.Īnd on the individual interfaces we have: Everything seems from our end to work fine, however, we have had complaints that suddenly the VMs on those hosts are running "slow." We've recently migrated some of our ESX servers to a 3-port NIC team design.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |