From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 03:59:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 03:58:58 -0400 Received: from web12305.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.173.103]:3851 "HELO web12305.mail.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 03:58:50 -0400 Message-ID: <20010826075906.42641.qmail@web12305.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 09:59:06 +0200 (CEST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?willy=20tarreau?= Subject: Re: Poor Performance for ethernet bonding To: Ben Greear , Willy Tarreau Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <3B87ED15.77741DF9@candelatech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > The XOR method has been implemented to hash the > flows based on the SRC/DST > > MAC addresses. > > If you are only hashing on MAC addresses, then you > would become highly un-optimized in the case where a > machine is communicating with it's default gateway > primarily. absolutely right, but I think that when it was designed (sun? cisco?), it was primarily intended as many hosts to one (server, router or switch). A file server, a router or even a firewall can easily balance their load when they are connected to several tens of workstations. If your concern is really for peer to peer, then Andy's method is better as long as other hashing methods have not been implemented in the bonding code. > Perhaps the XOR hash is really more sophisticated?? it may be one day, but at the moment, it's designed to be compatible with other equipments which use it too. Willy ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Un e-mail gratuit @yahoo.fr ! Yahoo! Courrier : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com