I've got Link Aggregation enabled for 2x 1G ports into a NAS. Testing is all, the link works fine, no issues. I have a computer connected directly to another port, I noticed both ports (GE5 & GE7 in my case) showed the same utilisation when I was transferring a couple of large files. I see the TX port for GE10 to the computer fully saturated at 100%, but then both the LAG ports (5 & 7) show 100% utilisation on RX... this is not what I expected to see?<br/>
<br/>
Packet and byte counts in the Status -> Port Statistics screen look correct, resetting the stats and transferring the file again, I see a handful of packets/bytes on GE5 with GE7 showing all the traffic. The sum of 5 & 7 RX is the same as port 3 TX, this *is* what I expected to see.<br/>
<br/>
The network stats on the NAS show the same as the switch stats, traffic on one port, nothing on the other.<br/>
<br/>
Have I found a bug in the reporting UI? I think so, I noticed from the network traffic response to the HTTP POST into /cgi-bin/mainfunction.cgi the values returned for GE5 looks correct (snipped):<br/>
<CODE>
Code:
<i>
</i>...
{
"port": "GE5",
"percent": 0,
"bandwidth": "1000M",
"pixel": 0,
"rawbps": 2321,
"description": "LAGG for Storage VLAN"
},
...
{
"port": "GE7",
"percent": 0,
"bandwidth": "1000M",
"pixel": 323,
"rawbps": 808141333,
"description": "LAGG for Storage VLAN"
},
</CODE>
I'm not a web developer, but some digging seems to suggest the data for rendering is wrong, something in the function updateData(data) maybe?<br/>
<br/>
Obviously I may have not understood what I'm looking at, or have configured the LAG incorrectly (I've been through it all, it is quite straightforward, the only thing I can think is the odd reference in the docs to ports GE1 to GE4 (this switch has 8x RJ45 ports + 2x SFP).<br/>
<br/>
Thanks in advance for any thoughts.<br/>
<br/>
Robert. 
