From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "George B." Subject: Re: Network multiqueue question Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 21:00:48 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1271353637.16881.2846.camel@edumazet-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from mail-pz0-f204.google.com ([209.85.222.204]:62336 "EHLO mail-pz0-f204.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750718Ab0DPEAs (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Apr 2010 00:00:48 -0400 Received: by pzk42 with SMTP id 42so1682765pzk.4 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 21:00:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1271353637.16881.2846.camel@edumazet-laptop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Since this bothers me a bit, I will probably work on this in a near > future. (adding real multiqueue capability and RCU to bonding fast > paths) > > Ref: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/152987 That would be great and you would have my sincere thanks.. And if anyone is interested, what we do is take a pair of "top of rack" switches and cluster them together so they appear as one switch. Configure a LAG consisting of a port on each physical switch to a pair of bonded interfaces on the server and use mode 2 bonding. In normal operation, both interfaces are active. Should one switch experience a power or interface failure, the server sees one of the interfaces fail but just keeps working on the remaining interface. There is no "failover" event going on. Thanks, George