From: Dawid Ciezarkiewicz <dpc@asn.pl>
To: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
Cc: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] wrr (weighted round-robin) bonding
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:16:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200610171016.21964.dpc@asn.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061016213053.GA16231@gospo.rdu.redhat.com>
On Monday, 16 October 2006 23:30, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:07:57PM +0200, Dawid Ciezarkiewicz wrote:
> > >
> > > Before getting into the technical bits of the patch, what's the
> > > reason for wanting to do this, and why is this rather complex manual
> > > weight assignment better than an automatic system based on, e.g., link
> > > speed of the slaves?
> >
> > In short:
> > It was designed as a solution for wireless links bonding - where link
quality
> > can change rather quickly in time. By using wrr bonding, userspace tools
can
> > measure current bandwidth and change bonding slave weights in realtime.
>
> Since this is so similar to mode 0, it would seem there would be a way
> to extend it rather than creating yet another mode that is so similar.
> What would be the reason not to enhance that mode?
In fact - as default weight is being set to 1, without changing it wrr bonding
mode works like plain round-robin one. But it have little more overhead
(recharging tokens), and code is a bit more complicated. I was not sure if
some tools could assume that in mode 0 all interfaces work with same weights
and because of that behave strange with this patch in use.
It was written as a solution for some problem, and I'm still not sure if such
change will always be patch to linux kernel or may some day go into mainline.
For compatibility I've decided to have those modes separated.
Because of that I haven't replaced mode 0. If this patch will be considered
useful, and my concerns are not a problem - I'd like to replace 0 mode if
possible.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-10-17 8:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-10-16 18:21 [RFC] wrr (weighted round-robin) bonding Dawid Ciezarkiewicz
2006-10-16 18:27 ` Dawid Ciezarkiewicz
2006-10-16 18:50 ` Jay Vosburgh
2006-10-16 19:07 ` Dawid Ciezarkiewicz
2006-10-16 21:30 ` Andy Gospodarek
2006-10-17 8:16 ` Dawid Ciezarkiewicz [this message]
2006-10-19 19:04 ` Andy Gospodarek
2006-10-20 19:41 ` Dawid Ciezarkiewicz
2006-10-20 19:53 ` Jay Vosburgh
2006-10-20 20:52 ` Dawid Ciezarkiewicz
2006-10-20 21:35 ` Andy Gospodarek
2006-10-20 21:55 ` Jay Vosburgh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200610171016.21964.dpc@asn.pl \
--to=dpc@asn.pl \
--cc=andy@greyhouse.net \
--cc=fubar@us.ibm.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).