From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
To: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com>
Cc: Cacophonix <cacophonix@yahoo.com>,
linux-net@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: bonding vs 802.3ad/Cisco EtherChannel link agregation
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 09:09:42 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D860246.3060609@candelatech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3D85DB3D.DC65A80B@nortelnetworks.com
Chris Friesen wrote:
> Cacophonix wrote:
>
>>--- Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>This has always confused me. Why doesn't the bonding driver try and spread
>>>all the traffic over all the links?
>>
>>Because then you risk heavy packet reordering within an individual flow,
>>which can be detrimental in some cases.
>>--karthik
>
>
> I can see how it could make the receiving host work more on reassembly, but if throughput is key,
> wouldn't you still end up better if you can push twice as many packets through the pipe?
>
> Chris
Also, I notice lots of out-of-order packets on a single gigE link when running at high
speeds (SMP machine), so the kernel is still having to reorder quite a few packets.
Has anyone done any tests to see how much worse it is with dual-port bonding?
NAPI helps my problem, but does not make it go away entirely.
Ben
>
--
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> <Ben_Greear AT excite.com>
President of Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
ScryMUD: http://scry.wanfear.com http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-09-16 16:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-09-12 18:39 bonding vs 802.3ad/Cisco EtherChannel link agregation Boris Protopopov
2002-09-12 23:34 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-13 14:29 ` Chris Friesen
2002-09-13 22:22 ` Cacophonix
2002-09-16 13:23 ` Chris Friesen
2002-09-16 16:09 ` Ben Greear [this message]
2002-09-16 19:55 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-16 21:10 ` Chris Friesen
2002-09-16 21:04 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-16 21:22 ` Chris Friesen
2002-09-16 21:17 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-17 10:16 ` jamal
2002-09-17 16:43 ` Ben Greear
2002-09-18 1:07 ` jamal
2002-09-18 4:06 ` Ben Greear
2002-09-18 11:48 ` jamal
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-09-13 1:30 Feldman, Scott
2002-09-13 14:50 ` Boris Protopopov
2002-09-16 20:12 Yan-Fa Li
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=3D860246.3060609@candelatech.com \
--to=greearb@candelatech.com \
--cc=cacophonix@yahoo.com \
--cc=cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com \
--cc=linux-net@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
/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).