topic Re: bond - balance-alb or balance-rr which is best in Operating System - Linux

bond - balance-alb or balance-rr which is best

Maaz — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:50:17 GMT

We have some machines with Gigabit nics (Intel e1000 and Broadcom NetXtreme).
These machines are connected to the network via plain/normal Gigabit switches.

We are testing a channel bonding with 'balance-rr' option, and at least its working sufficient/fine/ok.
I'll also test 'balance-alb' option

Is there any special requirement for using 'balance-alb' ... I mean should I need a special switch or a special nic ?

and in terms of speed/performance/fault-tolerance/load-balancing which one is better/smarter/reliable 'balance-rr' or 'balance-alb' ?

please recommend/suggest
Regards
Maaz

Re: bond - balance-alb or balance-rr which is best

rick jones — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:39:34 GMT

I've never been fond of balance-rr myself - yes, it does allow a single stream to go faster than one link, but the cost is reordered packets that will trigger additional TCP ACK segments, and if there is enough reordering, spurrious fast retransmissions.

Re: bond - balance-alb or balance-rr which is best

Steven E. Protter — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:15:34 GMT

Shalom,

I would go based on actual test results.

I've found bonding Intel and Broadcom NIC's together led to instability and the network sometimes would not come up on boot at all.

What I would go for if possible is active-active bonding to max out bandwidth, but the pitfalls are well known.

It is possible you will get less throughput bases on pairing an Intel and Broadcom NIC in the same bond.

SEP

Re: bond - balance-alb or balance-rr which is best

Maaz — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:53:52 GMT

Hi Thanks rick jones.
> I've never been fond of balance-rr myself
should I go for balance-alb ?

Hi Thanks SEP
>I've found bonding Intel and Broadcom NIC's
>together led to instability and the network
>sometimes would not come up on boot at all.
thanks for sharing this. Yes I wont do this. both NICs must be either Intel or Broadcom, but not a mix

>What I would go for if possible is
>active-active bonding to max out bandwidth,
You mean 'balance-alb' ? .

>but the pitfalls are well known
do you means that there are some 'hidden cost' of using 'balance-alb' ? i.e some problems with balance-alb .. if yes then please share.

and I also have start testing the 'balance-alb' and I found its working smoothly, without any issue/error... it means 'balance-alb' does not require any special NIC or Switch.

Regards
Maaz

Re: bond - balance-alb or balance-rr which is best

rick jones — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:36:20 GMT

Mine was just an opinion, you should go with whichever best fits your needs. I just wanted to make sure the "costs" :) of balance-rr were out there.