Reply
yepii
Posts: 2
Registered: ‎03-14-2009

SRW2024P to SRW2024P, LAG: static or LACP, what it is better?

Hi

what is the better way?

1-Static port enabling in "Link Aggregation"
or
2-Enabling ports by LACP? and after create a LAG? it is the same performance? (load balancing and fail over)
 

I am sorry it's not clear, and sure i am not a guru :-) in red admin...

That i need too is connecting 2 nics from 2 CentOS servers to these 2 switch:


 SERV-1
         nic1 (2ports gig)-> switch 1 (dual link 802.3ad)
         nic2 (2ports gig)-> switch 2 (dual link 802.3ad)
  
 SERV-2
         nic1 (2ports gig)-> switch 1 (dual link 802.3ad)
         nic2 (2ports gig)-> switch 2 (dual link 802.3ad)


(eth0/1 2/3 in mode4(802.3ad) to these switchs)


In this case too what is better "Static" or "LACP".....

 

Thank's
Regards

 

(note info in this switch:
The switch supports both static trunking and dynamic Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP).  Static trunks have to be manually configured at both ends of the link, and the switches must be compatible with the Cisco EtherChannel standard. LACP configured ports can automatically negotiate a trunked link with LACP-configured ports on another device. You can configure any number of ports on the switch as LACP...)

pilat2poncio
Posts: 199
Registered: ‎01-28-2009

Re: SRW2024P to SRW2024P, LAG: static or LACP, what it is better?

hello! i think the best solution for your network is LACP. i'm not really sure if LAG for Linksys device is the same with other manufacturer.