* Is sch_teql still useful?
@ 2015-01-31 4:23 Cong Wang
2015-02-02 6:27 ` David Miller
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Cong Wang @ 2015-01-31 4:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jamal Hadi Salim; +Cc: netdev, David Miller, Stephen Hemminger
Hi,
Since we have bonding alb, is it still needed to have sch_teql since
they do the same thing, load balancing over multiple interfaces? Also
sch_teql mixes netdevice with qdisc, which somewhat breaks the
abstraction?
I don't dig the history so I could easily miss something here.
Thanks!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: Is sch_teql still useful?
2015-01-31 4:23 Is sch_teql still useful? Cong Wang
@ 2015-02-02 6:27 ` David Miller
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2015-02-02 6:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cwang; +Cc: jhs, netdev, stephen
From: Cong Wang <cwang@twopensource.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 20:23:32 -0800
> Since we have bonding alb, is it still needed to have sch_teql since
> they do the same thing, load balancing over multiple interfaces? Also
> sch_teql mixes netdevice with qdisc, which somewhat breaks the
> abstraction?
>
> I don't dig the history so I could easily miss something here.
I can't comment as to it's usefulness, but I will note that we don't
have the option of removing it if you are thinking about doing so.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-02-02 6:27 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-01-31 4:23 Is sch_teql still useful? Cong Wang
2015-02-02 6:27 ` David Miller
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).