| To: | Cacophonix <cacophonix@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: bonding vs 802.3ad/Cisco EtherChannel link agregation |
| From: | Chris Friesen <cfriesen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 16 Sep 2002 09:23:09 -0400 |
| Cc: | linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <20020913222213.69396.qmail@web14006.mail.yahoo.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Cacophonix wrote: > > --- Chris Friesen <cfriesen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, todd-lkml |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: bonding vs 802.3ad/Cisco EtherChannel link agregation, Cacophonix |
| Next by Thread: | Re: bonding vs 802.3ad/Cisco EtherChannel link agregation, Ben Greear |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |