From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phillip Susi Subject: Re: 802.3ad bonding brain damaged? Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 16:32:15 -0400 Message-ID: <4E4047CF.5030705@cfl.rr.com> References: <4E3EECF6.90409@cfl.rr.com> <1312790234.7020.26.camel@arkology.n2.diac24.net> <4E4041B5.5040908@cfl.rr.com> <4E4043AB.1060500@genband.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Lamparter , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Friesen Return-path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.123]:53057 "EHLO cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752079Ab1HHUcQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Aug 2011 16:32:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4E4043AB.1060500@genband.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 8/8/2011 4:14 PM, Chris Friesen wrote: > Bonding doesn't know about "higher level protocols". Also, assuming that > higher level protocols already deal with reordering can be dangerous. > I've dealt with network protocols and apps that assumed there would be > no reordering because at the time they were written they used > point-to-point links. They actually work fairly well with single links, > so it would be reasonable to try and keep them working with bonded links. Try, sure, but if you can't without seriously affecting performance, then having a knob for damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead mode seems reasonable. I wonder how it is that people have reported that Windows machines manage to do this? Come to think of it, can windows even bond in software? Maybe it's only possible on Windows with dual port cards where the drivers and hardware can make sure that the bonded interfaces service a single queue and maintain ordering that way?