0

I have 3 boxes each with 2 NICs that all have LAG enabled (802.3ad supported by a Unifi Switch 24).

Two of the boxes (a HP Microserver and a WD MyCloud PR4100 NAS) work perfectly with the 2 aggregated links and can get full 2Gbps out of them with multiple iperf connections.

The other is a custom built micro-itx system running Ubuntu 18.04.1 which I have configured a bonded interface using netplan. Despite copying the exact settings used for the WD NAS this one only ever uses one of the NICs even when hitting mulitple iperf tests, and it maxes out at 1GBps no matter what I try.

The bonded interface settings are as follows:

network:
    ethernets:
        eth0:
            match:
                 macaddress: e0:d5:5e:66:52:48
            dhcp4: no
        eth1:
            match:
                 macaddress: e0:d5:5e:66:52:46
            dhcp4: no
    bonds:
        bond0:
            dhcp4: yes
            interfaces: [eth0, eth1]
            parameters:
                mode: 802.3ad
                lacp-rate: slow
                ad-select: stable
                transmit-hash-policy: layer2
                min-links: 0
                mii-monitor-interval: 500
                up-delay: 1000
                down-delay: 1000
    version: 2

cat /proc/net/bonding/bond0 output is:

Ethernet Channel Bonding Driver: v3.7.1 (April 27, 2011)

Bonding Mode: IEEE 802.3ad Dynamic link aggregation
Transmit Hash Policy: layer2 (0)
MII Status: up
MII Polling Interval (ms): 500
Up Delay (ms): 1000
Down Delay (ms): 1000

802.3ad info
LACP rate: slow
Min links: 0
Aggregator selection policy (ad_select): stable

Slave Interface: enp5s0
MII Status: up
Speed: 1000 Mbps
Duplex: full
Link Failure Count: 0
Permanent HW addr: e0:d5:5e:66:52:46
Slave queue ID: 0
Aggregator ID: 1
Actor Churn State: none
Partner Churn State: none
Actor Churned Count: 0
Partner Churned Count: 0

Slave Interface: enp0s31f6
MII Status: up
Speed: 1000 Mbps
Duplex: full
Link Failure Count: 0
Permanent HW addr: e0:d5:5e:66:52:48
Slave queue ID: 0
Aggregator ID: 1
Actor Churn State: none
Partner Churn State: none
Actor Churned Count: 0
Partner Churned Count: 0

Everything else is set up identically on the switch's side, yet the proc output on the WD box shows information that's not shown on the problematic box.

This is the output from the WD NAS, note it shows Active Aggregator Info which is not shown above.

Ethernet Channel Bonding Driver: v3.7.1 (April 27, 2011)

Bonding Mode: IEEE 802.3ad Dynamic link aggregation
Transmit Hash Policy: layer2 (0)
MII Status: up
MII Polling Interval (ms): 500
Up Delay (ms): 1000
Down Delay (ms): 1000

802.3ad info
LACP rate: slow
Min links: 0
Aggregator selection policy (ad_select): stable
Active Aggregator Info:
        Aggregator ID: 1
        Number of ports: 2
        Actor Key: 9
        Partner Key: 68
        Partner Mac Address: fc:ec:da:03:b2:03

Slave Interface: egiga0
MII Status: up
Speed: 1000 Mbps
Duplex: full
Link Failure Count: 4
Permanent HW addr: 00:14:ee:00:a3:70
Slave queue ID: 0
Aggregator ID: 1
Actor Churn State: none
Partner Churn State: none
Actor Churned Count: 2
Partner Churned Count: 2
details actor lacp pdu:
    system priority: 0
    port key: 9
    port priority: 255
    port number: 1
    port state: 61
details partner lacp pdu:
    system priority: 32768
    oper key: 68
    port priority: 128
    port number: 17
    port state: 61

Slave Interface: egiga1
MII Status: up
Speed: 1000 Mbps
Duplex: full
Link Failure Count: 4
Permanent HW addr: 00:14:ee:00:a3:71
Slave queue ID: 0
Aggregator ID: 1
Actor Churn State: none
Partner Churn State: none
Actor Churned Count: 2
Partner Churned Count: 2
details actor lacp pdu:
    system priority: 0
    port key: 9
    port priority: 255
    port number: 2
    port state: 61

Does anyone have any idea why this is happening? Could it be the actual hardware NICs that don't fully support 802.3ad? Is this a thing? Any other things I can try to diagnose the problem?

TIA

New contributor
DrJohnZoidberg is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.

Your Answer

DrJohnZoidberg is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.