From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Tvrtko A. Ursulin" Subject: Re: Bonding gigabit and fast? Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:51:55 +0000 Message-ID: <200812170751.55999.tvrtko@ursulin.net> References: <200812161939.30033.tvrtko@ursulin.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Trent Piepho Return-path: Received: from mk-outboundfilter-6-a-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com ([212.74.114.16]:17765 "EHLO mk-outboundfilter-6-a-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758966AbYLQHv6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:51:58 -0500 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wednesday 17 December 2008 02:53:10 Trent Piepho wrote: > If the transmitter is sending out packets round-robin on two links, it's > sending the packets like this: > > Link A: 1 3 5 7 > Link B: 2 4 6 8 > > If the cards return two packets per interrupt, the receiver gets them like > this: > > Link A: 1 3 5 7 > Link B: 2 4 6 8 > > Well, the Linux kernel does not like getting the packets in the order (1 3 > 2 4 5 7 6 8). It likes to get the packets in the correct order. And so > performance suffers. At the time, it suffered greatly. Maybe it's better > or worse now? I don't know, but to clarify I was never aiming to get higher than gigabit speed, even on the receiver side there is only single gigabit link. From the bonding HOWTO I understood that in this configuration packets my actually arrive in order. Point of my experiment was to see if I can work around very slow gigabit speeds (<10Mb/s) I was getting while serving data out with Samba. So I was hoping to get 20 Mb/s sustained with this slow gigabit and normally fast fast ethernet. But yeah, bonding seemed to cause aggregated speed to be somewhat less than when each were alone. Tvrtko