Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On 10.08.2011 19:04, Herman wrote: > If this is the case, maybe arp monitoring is more reliable for direct > connections since NIC failure (which may fail but still have link up) is > more likely than cable failure? Maybe I don't have a good understanding > of this. With switches in between, ARP monitoring is a bit dangerous because you either need a switch that answers the ARP queries (i.e it must be manageable) or you have another machine that answers. But then what happens when that other machine is down ... With direct connections between hosts this does not matter though - whether the other side does not answer due to a broken cable, an exploded NIC or just plain reboot is just the same. > In addition, I tried to use scp to test the throughput through the > bonded link, but I actually got almost the same results via > active-backup as with balance-rr. Am I doing something wrong? > With SSH you will see basically the rate at which the hosts can en-/decrypt packets. Better try something like "iperf" or some file server that does not encrypt traffic, NFS or FTP for example. Ciao Andi