Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
[Eric, sorry for the direct reply. I'm resending to the list now. I totally hate lists without the list address in reply-to :)] Il giorno 22/dic/08, alle ore 18:48, Robinson, Eric ha scritto: > What would be your main goal in considering bonding, bandwidth or > availability? Any incremental advantage over the two single links setup would be ok. I haven't much experience with bonded setups. I don't know if a single disk is going to saturate a single direct jumbo gigabit so I don't know what kind of performance improvement I'm going to get. I also don't know if the bonding will introduce some additional penalties (more code path = more latency, buy I'd think it'll be so little as to be unmeasurable). I'd prefer availability since this is a long running, remotely colocated setup, if it doesn't come at the cost of something else. The setup shouldn't be too complex since I don't have anything else on those links, so I haven't any problem of bridging (for xen domains, on the lan and wan links), firewalling (ditto, and I'd only have drbd talking on those IPs), traffic accounting, additional failure points (no switch, only crossover cable), etc. As far as I know the bonding driver shouldn't have problems with jumbo frames and it should be rock solid. The documentation of the e1000 driver explicitly states it supports channel bonding. In my setup (two crossover cables, no switches) the balance-rr bonding method will probably be the best one provinding both improved bandwidth and improved availability. -- Luca Lesinigo LM Networks Srl