On 07/14/2010 08:17 AM, Whit Blauvelt wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:51:51AM -0500, Tim Nelson wrote: > > >> Even if the limit were lower, such as 10 physical interfaces as mentioned >> before, I have to imagine that the host system would have issues dealing >> with the number of interrupts needed to *PROPERLY* service all of those >> interfaces in addition to the other system hardware. >> > There may (or may not) be another problem. As of a couple of years ago, on > some Linux variants (didn't try RHEL/CentOS), I was having trouble even > getting 6 NICs (on 3 cards) to work if I had IPv6 turned on. 4 NICs worked > fine. > > Filed some bug reports, and it was evident from the response that very, very > few Linux users ever go> 4 eth's on a system. Thus the lack of properly > debugged IPv6 support for that then. Fortunately I don't (yet) need IPv6. > When I do, it'll be curious to see if the bug is still there. > I've got six machines with 6 Gb interfaces (two on motherboard, 4 on a card) right now (the design called for 3 bonded pairs on separate nets for redundancy). I haven't tried IPV6 on them. I had 'issues' with bonding and VMs though. -- Benjamin Franz