That said, it's certainly plausible that, for a given set of N
ethernets all enslaved to a single bonding balance-rr, the individual
ethernets could get out of sync, as it were (e.g., one running a fuller
tx ring, and thus running "behind" the others).
That is the scenario of which I was thinking.
If bonding is the only feeder of the devices, then for a continuous
flow of traffic, all the slaves will generally receive packets (from
the kernel, for transmission) at pretty much the same rate, and so
they won't tend to get ahead or behind.
I could see that if there was just one TCP connection going doing bulk
or something, but if there were a bulk transmitter coupled with an
occasional request/response (ie netperf TCP_STREAM and a TCP_RR) i'd
think the tx rings would no longer remain balanced.
I haven't investigated into this deeply for a few years, but
this is my recollection of what happened with the tests I did then. I
did testing with multiple 100Mb devices feeding either other sets of
100Mb devices or single gigabit devices. I'm willing to believe that
things have changed, and an N feeding into one configuration can
reorder, but I haven't seen it (or really looked for it; balance-rr
isn't much the rage these days).
Are you OK with that block of text simply being yanked?
rick
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
