<div dir="ltr">I am not sure if your nics support it but you could try balance-alb (bonding mode 6), this does not require special switch support and I have had good results with it. As Lindsey said the switch configuration could be limiting the bandwidth between nodes in balance-rr. <br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 14 July 2016 at 05:21, Gandalf Corvotempesta <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gandalf.corvotempesta@gmail.com" target="_blank">gandalf.corvotempesta@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">2016-07-14 11:19 GMT+02:00, Gandalf Corvotempesta<br>
<<a href="mailto:gandalf.corvotempesta@gmail.com">gandalf.corvotempesta@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
</span><span class="">> Yes, but my iperf test was made with a wrong bonding configuration.<br>
<br>
</span>Anyway, even with direct NFS mount (not involving gluster) i'm stuck<br>
as 60MB/s (480mbit/s)<br>
about 50% of available bandwidth with a single nic/connection.<br>
<br>
Any change to get this cluster faster ?<br>
Which speed are you seeing with gluster or nfs ? I would like to<br>
archieve the best possible speed before buying more powerful hardware<br>
(10Gb switches)<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
Gluster-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org">Gluster-users@gluster.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>