Port Load sharing


Userlevel 3
After i enable Lacp .. port is not sharing. Utilization is high on Link 1 only.
I want to use load balance on both links.
Please kindly see the below output and advice thanks.

* I try L2 static, L3_L4 and LACP. all the same ports are not load balance. *

enable sharing 1 grouping 1,4

enable sharing 1 grouping 1,4 L3_L4

enable sharing 1 grouping 1,4 algorithm address-based L3_L4 lacp


CoreSW # sh port 1,4 utilization bandwithPort Link Link Rx Peak Rx Tx Peak Tx
State Speed % bandwidth % bandwidth % bandwidth % bandwidth
================================================================================
Link_1> A 1000 82.06 94.94 48.23 55.72
Link_2> A 1000 0.25 0.30 1.34 1.57
================================================================================
> indicates Port Display Name truncated past 8 characters
Link State: A-Active, R-Ready, NP-Port Not Present, L-Loopback

CoreSW #sh sharing
Load Sharing Monitor
Config Current Agg Ld Share Ld Share Agg Link Link Up
Master Master Control Algorithm Group Mbr State Transitions
==============================================================================
1 1 LACP L3_L4 1 Y A 0
L3_L4 4 Y A 0
==============================================================================
Link State: A-Active, D-Disabled, R-Ready, NP-Port not present, L-Loopback
Load Sharing Algorithm: (L2) Layer 2 address based
(L3_L4) Layer 3 address and Layer 4 port based
Number of load sharing trunks: 1


Core2 # sh lacp lag 1
Lag Actor Actor Partner Partner Partner Agg Actor
Sys-Pri Key MAC Sys-Pri Key Count MAC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0 0x03e9 00:04:96:34:b2:e1 0 0x03e9 2 00:04:96:34:b2:e0

Port list:

Member Port Rx Sel Mux Actor Partner
Port Priority State Logic State Flags Port
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0 Current Selected Collect-Dist A-GSCD-- 1001
4 0 Current Selected Collect-Dist A-GSCD-- 1012
================================================================================
Actor Flags: A-Activity, T-Timeout, G-Aggregation, S-Synchronization
C-Collecting, D-Distributing, F-Defaulted, E-Expired

44 replies

Userlevel 3
What model do you use in this example ? (Summit X250, 460, BD ? )

LACP is between two extreme switches or server and 1 extreme switch ? (other vendor ?)

What EXOS is on the switch ?

--
Jarek
Userlevel 3
Jarek wrote:

What model do you use in this example ? (Summit X250, 460, BD ? )

LACP is between two extreme switches or server and 1 extreme switch ? (other vendor ?)

What EXOS is on the switch ?

--
Jarek

Thanks Jarek,

Core1 and Core 2 using X450a-24x

LACP is between two Core Switches.
ExtremeXOS version 15.3.1.4

Please advice thanks.

We want to use load balance on both links.
Userlevel 3
Jarek wrote:

What model do you use in this example ? (Summit X250, 460, BD ? )

LACP is between two extreme switches or server and 1 extreme switch ? (other vendor ?)

What EXOS is on the switch ?

--
Jarek

I have two X250e with config like bellow:
"enable sharing 24 grouping 21-24 algorithm address-based L3_L4"

and all is working well (EXOS ver 15.3.1.4-1-30).

Did you enabled sharing on both swicthes?
Userlevel 3
Jarek wrote:

What model do you use in this example ? (Summit X250, 460, BD ? )

LACP is between two extreme switches or server and 1 extreme switch ? (other vendor ?)

What EXOS is on the switch ?

--
Jarek

could you please share the outcome of

sh port 21,24 utilization bandwith
Userlevel 3
Jarek wrote:

What model do you use in this example ? (Summit X250, 460, BD ? )

LACP is between two extreme switches or server and 1 extreme switch ? (other vendor ?)

What EXOS is on the switch ?

--
Jarek

Yes i did sharing on both switches. Thanks.

Please kindly share the show command of

show port 21-24 utilization bandwidth

Is it load balance on port 21-24 links?
Userlevel 3
Jarek wrote:

What model do you use in this example ? (Summit X250, 460, BD ? )

LACP is between two extreme switches or server and 1 extreme switch ? (other vendor ?)

What EXOS is on the switch ?

--
Jarek

Paul,

you set those commands on switch like bellow:
enable sharing 1 grouping 1,4
enable sharing 1 grouping 1,4 L3_L4
enable sharing 1 grouping 1,4 algorithm address-based L3_L4 lacp

or only :

enable sharing 1 grouping 1,4 algorithm address-based L3_L4 lacp

I have on my switches:

enable sharing 24 grouping 21-24 algorithm address-based L3_L4 lacp

# sh ports 21-24 utilization bandwidth
Port Link Link Rx Peak Rx Tx Peak Tx
State Speed % bandwidth % bandwidth % bandwidth % bandwidth
================================================================================
21 A 100 0.00 0.01 0.02 8.27
22 A 100 1.61 1.61 45.28 45.28
23 A 100 0.02 0.02 0.00 7.97
24 A 100 1.54 2.96 43.32 90.63
================================================================================

--
Jarek
Userlevel 3
Jarek wrote:

What model do you use in this example ? (Summit X250, 460, BD ? )

LACP is between two extreme switches or server and 1 extreme switch ? (other vendor ?)

What EXOS is on the switch ?

--
Jarek

I use only one command same like you. But the both links are not load share as i mentioned above. Anyway how can i load balance on these port. Please advice
Userlevel 3
Jarek wrote:

What model do you use in this example ? (Summit X250, 460, BD ? )

LACP is between two extreme switches or server and 1 extreme switch ? (other vendor ?)

What EXOS is on the switch ?

--
Jarek

Link1 is 82 % and Link2 is only 0.25 % We want to achive load balanced on link1 and link2 Really appreciate your help and advice Jarek.
Userlevel 3
Jarek wrote:

What model do you use in this example ? (Summit X250, 460, BD ? )

LACP is between two extreme switches or server and 1 extreme switch ? (other vendor ?)

What EXOS is on the switch ?

--
Jarek

What exactly exos do you have 15.3.1.4-p1-xx <-?
Userlevel 3
Jarek wrote:

What model do you use in this example ? (Summit X250, 460, BD ? )

LACP is between two extreme switches or server and 1 extreme switch ? (other vendor ?)

What EXOS is on the switch ?

--
Jarek

Sorry my current active version is 15.3.3.5. 15.3.1.4 is on other partition. Thanks. Is it bug or firmware not supported? I do need your adivce on this. The links are in live production network.
Userlevel 3
Jarek wrote:

What model do you use in this example ? (Summit X250, 460, BD ? )

LACP is between two extreme switches or server and 1 extreme switch ? (other vendor ?)

What EXOS is on the switch ?

--
Jarek

Hmm, I don't use 15.3.3.5. Maybe there is a bug...
Can you show me from both switches:
sh sharing
sh lacp
sh lacp counters
sh lacp lag 1 detail
Userlevel 3
Jarek wrote:

What model do you use in this example ? (Summit X250, 460, BD ? )

LACP is between two extreme switches or server and 1 extreme switch ? (other vendor ?)

What EXOS is on the switch ?

--
Jarek

I will provide it later. Currently i m outside. Thanks alot.
Userlevel 3
Jarek wrote:

What model do you use in this example ? (Summit X250, 460, BD ? )

LACP is between two extreme switches or server and 1 extreme switch ? (other vendor ?)

What EXOS is on the switch ?

--
Jarek

Core2 # sh sharing
Load Sharing Monitor
Config Current Agg Ld Share Ld Share Agg Link Link Up
Master Master Control Algorithm Group Mbr State Transitions
==============================================================================
1 1 LACP L3_L4 1 Y A 0
L3_L4 4 Y A 0
==============================================================================
Link State: A-Active, D-Disabled, R-Ready, NP-Port not present, L-Loopback
Load Sharing Algorithm: (L2) Layer 2 address based
(L3_L4) Layer 3 address and Layer 4 port based
Number of load sharing trunks: 1

************************************************************************************
************************************************************************************

Core2 # sh lacp

LACP Up : Yes
LACP Enabled : Yes
System MAC : 00:04:96:34:b2:e0
LACP PDUs dropped on non-LACP ports : 19

Lag Actor Actor Partner Partner Partner Agg
Sys-Pri Key MAC Sys-Pri Key Count
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0 0x03e9 00:04:96:34:b2:e1 0 0x03e9 2
================================================================================

Core2 # sh lacp lag 1

Lag Actor Actor Partner Partner Partner Agg Actor
Sys-Pri Key MAC Sys-Pri Key Count MAC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0 0x03e9 00:04:96:34:b2:e1 0 0x03e9 2 00:04:96:34:b2:e0

Port list:

Member Port Rx Sel Mux Actor Partner
Port Priority State Logic State Flags Port
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0 Current Selected Collect-Dist A-GSCD-- 1001
4 0 Current Selected Collect-Dist A-GSCD-- 1012
================================================================================
Actor Flags: A-Activity, T-Timeout, G-Aggregation, S-Synchronization
C-Collecting, D-Distributing, F-Defaulted, E-Expired

************************************************************************************
************************************************************************************

Core2 # sh lacp lag 1 detail

Lag Actor Actor Partner Partner Partner Agg Actor
Sys-Pri Key MAC Sys-Pri Key Count MAC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0 0x03e9 00:04:96:34:b2:e1 0 0x03e9 2 00:04:96:34:b2:e0

Up : Yes
Enabled : Yes
Unack count : 0
Wait-for-count : 0
Current timeout : Long
Activity mode : Active
Defaulted Action : Delete
Receive state : Enabled
Transmit state : Enabled
Selected count : 2
Standby count : 0
LAG Id flag : Yes
S.pri:0 , S.id:00:04:96:34:b2:e0, K:0x03e9
T.pri:0 , T.id:00:04:96:34:b2:e1, L:0x03e9

Port list:

Member Port Rx Sel Mux Actor Partner
Port Priority State Logic State Flags Port
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0 Current Selected Collect-Dist A-GSCD-- 1001
4 0 Current Selected Collect-Dist A-GSCD-- 1012
================================================================================
Actor Flags: A-Activity, T-Timeout, G-Aggregation, S-Synchronization
C-Collecting, D-Distributing, F-Defaulted, E-Expired

************************************************************************************
************************************************************************************
Core1# show ports sharing
Load Sharing Monitor
Config Current Agg Ld Share Ld Share Agg Link Link Up
Master Master Control Algorithm Group Mbr State Transitions
==============================================================================
1 1 LACP L3_L4 1 Y A 0
L3_L4 12 Y A 0
==============================================================================
Link State: A-Active, D-Disabled, R-Ready, NP-Port not present, L-Loopback
Load Sharing Algorithm: (L2) Layer 2 address based
(L3_L4) Layer 3 address and Layer 4 port based
Number of load sharing trunks: 1

currently i don't have the log for Core1, I will provide for the Core1 also. Thanks.
Userlevel 3
Jarek wrote:

What model do you use in this example ? (Summit X250, 460, BD ? )

LACP is between two extreme switches or server and 1 extreme switch ? (other vendor ?)

What EXOS is on the switch ?

--
Jarek

Paul you have on core2 ports 1,4 in lacp and on core1 ports 1 and 12?
Userlevel 3
Jarek wrote:

What model do you use in this example ? (Summit X250, 460, BD ? )

LACP is between two extreme switches or server and 1 extreme switch ? (other vendor ?)

What EXOS is on the switch ?

--
Jarek

Hi jarek, Yes correct. It make any different please.
Userlevel 3
Jarek wrote:

What model do you use in this example ? (Summit X250, 460, BD ? )

LACP is between two extreme switches or server and 1 extreme switch ? (other vendor ?)

What EXOS is on the switch ?

--
Jarek

From show sharing I see that Link Up Transitions in both switches are 0.
Can you show from both:
sh lacp counters
sh configuration | inc shari

I asked about ports, because I had understood that you set on both switches:
enable sharing 1 grouping 1,4 algorithm address-based L3_L4 lacp
Userlevel 3
Jarek wrote:

What model do you use in this example ? (Summit X250, 460, BD ? )

LACP is between two extreme switches or server and 1 extreme switch ? (other vendor ?)

What EXOS is on the switch ?

--
Jarek

Thanks Jarek,

Core 1
enable sharing 1 grouping 1, 12 algorithm address-based L3_L4 lacp

Core 2
sh configuration | inc shari
enable sharing 1 grouping 1, 4 algorithm address-based L3_L4 lacp

will provide the command output tomorrow. thank.
Userlevel 4
Try these steps:
If
1.configure sharing address-based custom

check if it load shares

else
configure sharing address-based custom hash-algorithm [xor | crc-16 | crc-32]
try CRC-16----If it doesnt help try CRC-32

One or the other way changing hashing must help.
Userlevel 3
PARTHIBAN CHINNAYA wrote:

Try these steps:
If
1.configure sharing address-based custom

check if it load shares

else
configure sharing address-based custom hash-algorithm [xor | crc-16 | crc-32]
try CRC-16----If it doesnt help try CRC-32

One or the other way changing hashing must help.

Hi PARTHIBAN,

I will try tomorrow morning. Thanks a lot for the information. Thanks.
Userlevel 3
PARTHIBAN CHINNAYA wrote:

Try these steps:
If
1.configure sharing address-based custom

check if it load shares

else
configure sharing address-based custom hash-algorithm [xor | crc-16 | crc-32]
try CRC-16----If it doesnt help try CRC-32

One or the other way changing hashing must help.

Hi Parthiban,

I try this command and not supported in XOS 15.3.3.5 model X450a-24x.

"configure sharing address-based custom"

Is there any way to change the CRC to customize the hash for X450a-24x? Thanks.

BRgds,
Userlevel 7
Load sharing is not the same as load balancing. EXOS does load sharing (link aggregation), but not load balancing. As Parthiban and Jarek have mentioned, you can adjust the hash algorithm to attempt to better spread the traffic across the links.

I'd like to try to understand your use case. Is there a problem with the traffic favoring one link over another, or is it just a preference to have it balanced? What type of traffic is between these two switches? Using the L3_L4 algorithm, you could see one link more saturated than the other if the IP address and protocol port is the same for a majority of the traffic. If you use the L2 algorithm, it will be based on the MAC address of the source and destination systems - if they are the same, only one link will be chosen.
Userlevel 3
Drew C. wrote:

Load sharing is not the same as load balancing. EXOS does load sharing (link aggregation), but not load balancing. As Parthiban and Jarek have mentioned, you can adjust the hash algorithm to attempt to better spread the traffic across the links.

I'd like to try to understand your use case. Is there a problem with the traffic favoring one link over another, or is it just a preference to have it balanced? What type of traffic is between these two switches? Using the L3_L4 algorithm, you could see one link more saturated than the other if the IP address and protocol port is the same for a majority of the traffic. If you use the L2 algorithm, it will be based on the MAC address of the source and destination systems - if they are the same, only one link will be chosen.

Hi Drew,

I have been asking this question in several places. Because this is high priority for me I cannot find the guideline and documentation about this. And I didn't get the appropriate answer to reply my customer. Thank you for your answer.

Yes we have a big problem with the traffic favoring on only one link.
Previously, only 1 link saturation experienced.

We want to load balance the traffic on both link not on a single link. Because users are experienced of network slow and video cannot stream.

Multicast Traffic for (CCTV video network) is between two core switches.

I am using the L3_L4 algorithm LACP , But I only see one link more saturated than the other. Link1 is 82 % and Link2 is only 0.25 %

We want to achieve load balanced on link1 and link2.

We need your support.

Please suggest.

BRgds,
Paul
Userlevel 7
Drew C. wrote:

Load sharing is not the same as load balancing. EXOS does load sharing (link aggregation), but not load balancing. As Parthiban and Jarek have mentioned, you can adjust the hash algorithm to attempt to better spread the traffic across the links.

I'd like to try to understand your use case. Is there a problem with the traffic favoring one link over another, or is it just a preference to have it balanced? What type of traffic is between these two switches? Using the L3_L4 algorithm, you could see one link more saturated than the other if the IP address and protocol port is the same for a majority of the traffic. If you use the L2 algorithm, it will be based on the MAC address of the source and destination systems - if they are the same, only one link will be chosen.

Hi Paul,
If this is an urgent or high-priority issue, please consider opening a support case with TAC. They will be your best resource for understanding the situation and helping to find a solution in a timely manner.

If you haven't tried the L2 algorithm, I would recommend making that adjustment. My apologies if you've already mentioned trying that.

Please keep us updated!

-Drew
Userlevel 3
Drew C. wrote:

Load sharing is not the same as load balancing. EXOS does load sharing (link aggregation), but not load balancing. As Parthiban and Jarek have mentioned, you can adjust the hash algorithm to attempt to better spread the traffic across the links.

I'd like to try to understand your use case. Is there a problem with the traffic favoring one link over another, or is it just a preference to have it balanced? What type of traffic is between these two switches? Using the L3_L4 algorithm, you could see one link more saturated than the other if the IP address and protocol port is the same for a majority of the traffic. If you use the L2 algorithm, it will be based on the MAC address of the source and destination systems - if they are the same, only one link will be chosen.

Thanks Drew,

Aldy open TAC with high-priority yesterday. still not get the solution and recommendation. So finding the solutions to work around. apology for my quiz are messy in the HUB.

BRgds,
Paul
Userlevel 7
Drew C. wrote:

Load sharing is not the same as load balancing. EXOS does load sharing (link aggregation), but not load balancing. As Parthiban and Jarek have mentioned, you can adjust the hash algorithm to attempt to better spread the traffic across the links.

I'd like to try to understand your use case. Is there a problem with the traffic favoring one link over another, or is it just a preference to have it balanced? What type of traffic is between these two switches? Using the L3_L4 algorithm, you could see one link more saturated than the other if the IP address and protocol port is the same for a majority of the traffic. If you use the L2 algorithm, it will be based on the MAC address of the source and destination systems - if they are the same, only one link will be chosen.

Hi Paul,
I found your case number in our system and will let the case owner know about this thread and the urgency.

We're here to help, no worries on being "messy" 🙂

You could try to add a 3rd link to the port group - depending on how many streams there are, the additional link could make a difference in the way they are hashed. If you could upgrade the links to 10G (via XGM module for X450a), then this problem would likely clear itself. Stacking the two switches could also be an option, but would be considerably more difficult to implement since the network is already configured.

-Drew

Reply