Date:	Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:55:50 -0700
From:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
To:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove claim balance_rr won't reorder on many to one 

Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com> wrote:
[...]
>-	Note that this out of order delivery occurs when both the
>-	sending and receiving systems are utilizing a multiple
>-	interface bond.  Consider a configuration in which a
>-	balance-rr bond feeds into a single higher capacity network
>-	channel (e.g., multiple 100Mb/sec ethernets feeding a single
>-	gigabit ethernet via an etherchannel capable switch).  In this
>-	configuration, traffic sent from the multiple 100Mb devices to
>-	a destination connected to the gigabit device will not see
>-	packets out of order.  However, traffic sent from the gigabit
>-	device to the multiple 100Mb devices may or may not see
>-	traffic out of order, depending upon the balance policy of the
>-	switch.  Many switches do not support any modes that stripe
>-	traffic (instead choosing a port based upon IP or MAC level
>-	addresses); for those devices, traffic flowing from the
>-	gigabit device to the many 100Mb devices will only utilize one
>-	interface.

	Rather than simply removing this entirely (because I do think
there is value in discussion of the reordering aspects of balance-rr),
I'd rather see something that makes the following points:

	1- the worst reordering is balance-rr to balance-rr, back to
back.  The reordering rate here depends upon (a) the number of slaves
involved and (b) packet reception scheduling behaviors (packet
coalescing, NAPI, etc), and thus will vary signficantly, but won't be
better than case #2.

	2- next worst is "balance-rr many slow" to "single fast", with
the reordering rate generally being substantially lower than case #1 (it
looked like your test showed about a 1% reordering rate, if I'm reading
your data correctly).

	3- For the "single fast" to "balance-rr many" case, going
through a switch configured for etherchannel "may or may not see traffic
out of order, depending upon the balance policy of the switch.  Many
switches do not support any modes that stripe traffic (instead choosing
a port based upon IP or MAC level addresses); for those devices, traffic
flowing from the [single fast] device to the [balance-rr many] devices
will only utilize one interface."

[...]
> 	This mode requires the switch to have the appropriate ports
>-	configured for "etherchannel" or "trunking."
>+	configured for "etherchannel" or "aggregation." N.B. some
>+	switches might use the term "trunking" for something other 
>+	than link aggregation.

	If memory serves, Sun uses the term "trunking" to refer to
"etherchannel" compatible behavior.

	I'm also hearing "aggregation" used to described 802.3ad
specifically.

	Perhaps text of the form:

	This mode requires the switch to have the appropriate ports
configured for "Etherchannel."  Some switches use different terms, so
the configuration may be called "trunking" or "aggregation."  Note that
both of these terms also have other meanings.  For example, "trunking"
is also used to describe a type of switch port, and "aggregation" or
"link aggregation" is often used to refer to 802.3ad link aggregation,
which is compatible with bonding's 802.3ad mode, but not balance-rr.

	Thoughts?

	-J

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@...ibm.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists