From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: Network multiqueue question Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 06:53:53 +0200 Message-ID: <1271393633.16881.3606.camel@edumazet-laptop> References: <1271353637.16881.2846.camel@edumazet-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: netdev To: "George B." Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f225.google.com ([209.85.218.225]:55305 "EHLO mail-bw0-f225.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752455Ab0DPEyE (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Apr 2010 00:54:04 -0400 Received: by bwz25 with SMTP id 25so2523943bwz.28 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 21:54:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le jeudi 15 avril 2010 =C3=A0 21:00 -0700, George B. a =C3=A9crit : > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 > > Since this bothers me a bit, I will probably work on this in a near > > future. (adding real multiqueue capability and RCU to bonding fast > > paths) > > > > Ref: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/152987 >=20 > That would be great and you would have my sincere thanks.. And if > anyone is interested, what we do is take a pair of "top of rack" > switches and cluster them together so they appear as one switch. > Configure a LAG consisting of a port on each physical switch to a pai= r > of bonded interfaces on the server and use mode 2 bonding. In normal > operation, both interfaces are active. Should one switch experience = a > power or interface failure, the server sees one of the interfaces fai= l > but just keeps working on the remaining interface. There is no > "failover" event going on. >=20 What kind of traffic do your machines manage exactly ? On server, you use two ports of the same kind (same number of queues) ?