Now I understand why it doesn't work. I will look into it and try to find a solution. Thanks for all help Daniel > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Från: lartc-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:lartc-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]För bert hubert > > On second thought, there is no packet loss. This is expected behaviour, it > appears, see http://www.kernelnotes.de/kt/latest.html: > > Alexey Kuznetsov was critical of this explanation, and said that multipath > routing worked "perfectly when you need to split load on servers > talking to > enough large number of clients. Any > http server is good example." He added that Andi's suggestion of the > existing eql, teql and bonding devices, would introcude "even > worse problem > of strong tcp reordering. Actually, > experiments show that load balancing works only in the > situations, when > congestion window is bounded by 3 packets. If it is not made artificially, > it occurs automatically on each connection > after some amount of excessive retransmissions. Total single TCP > connection throughput is never better in this case. Actually, it hints to > the thought that "true load blalancing" has to > involve tracking connections and avoiding reordering TCP packets." > There was no reply to this, but there was a bit of implementation > discussion > elsewhere, along the lines of Andi's > explanations. > > ---- > > You might consider using google a bit to find out about packet > reordering - > packets arrive out of sequence on eth1 and eth2, which the kernel > interprets > as packetloss. > > Regards, > > bert hubert > > -- > PowerDNS Versatile DNS Services > Trilab The Technology People > 'SYN! .. SYN|ACK! .. ACK!' - the mating call of the internet > > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/2.4Routing/
