port channel or not

[tdubb123]

I am connecting a dell server M620 server that only has 2 vmnics

I am thinking of doing a etherchannel and using ip hash LB policy

There will only be one vswitch

management/vmotion/VMs

What do you think?

Or would it not make a difference in terms of performance if I went with standard port configuration?

[JimKnopf99]

Hi,

here is a good explaniation of how cisco port channels will load balance the traffic

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/lan-switching/etherchannel/12023-4.html

I would give it a try. Do some testing and then change to vmwares load balancing. Same testing and see what happen.

Frank

[JarryG]

It depends. If for you performance is the most important, then your set-up is good and you can not get more. If you think security is more important, then separate management/vmotion from VMs. Or even better, add some multi-port nic and then you have more options...

[JPM300]

One sec, I have talked about this subject a lot in great detail.  Let me dig it up.

However the coles notes version of this is:

LACP will only benfit you performance / speed wise if you have 1 VM that needs A LOT of throughput, as far as load balancing goes Orig Port ID or LBT will server you better, LBT being the best.  Now with 5.5 the new version of LACP in the VDS do have more ip hash algorythems so it is gettinb better.  Also the other exception to this is if you have a Nexus 1000 or something.

Re: LACP or no LACP, that is the question

This blog describes it in great detail between your options:

IP-Hash versus LBT - frankdenneman.nl

I hope this has helped.