lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Poor Performance for ethernet bonding
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 08:45:33AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> On the surface, multi-path routing sounds complicated to me, while
> layer-2 bonding seems relatively trivial to set up/administer. Since we do
> support bonding, if it's a simple fix to make it better, we
> might as well do that, eh?

multipath routing is really not complicated; I don't know why it "sounds"
complicated to you. Of course you could always add new features to the kernel
because the existing ones which do the same thing in a better way
"sound complicated" to someone; I doubt it is a good use of developer time
however.

BTW when you would teach bonding about flows it wouldn't be layer-2 anymore.

To kill the "sounds complicated" myth:

ip route add 10.0.0.0/8 nexthop dev eth0 nexthop dev eth1

gives you a multipath route with eth0 and eth1 with the same weight for
10.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0. If you replace 10.0.0.0/8 with default it'll
be your default route. The kernel does the rest.


-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:58    [W:0.054 / U:9.664 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site