I had similar problems with NAPI and DL2K. I was only able to "resolve" the issue by forcing my application and the NIC to a single CPU using CPU affinity hacks. -----Original Message----- From: Ben Greear [mailto:greearb@candelatech.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 9:10 AM To: Chris Friesen Cc: Cacophonix; linux-net@vger.kernel.org; netdev@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: bonding vs 802.3ad/Cisco EtherChannel link agregation Chris Friesen wrote: > Cacophonix wrote: > >>--- Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com> wrote: > > >>>This has always confused me. Why doesn't the bonding driver try and >>>spread all the traffic over all the links? >> >>Because then you risk heavy packet reordering within an individual >>flow, which can be detrimental in some cases. --karthik > > > I can see how it could make the receiving host work more on > reassembly, but if throughput is key, wouldn't you still end up better > if you can push twice as many packets through the pipe? > > Chris Also, I notice lots of out-of-order packets on a single gigE link when running at high speeds (SMP machine), so the kernel is still having to reorder quite a few packets. Has anyone done any tests to see how much worse it is with dual-port bonding? NAPI helps my problem, but does not make it go away entirely. Ben > -- Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> <Ben_Greear AT excite.com> President of Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com ScryMUD: http://scry.wanfear.com http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
