On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 02:12:56PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 12:58:13AM CET, ja...@redhat.com wrote: > >On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:11:45AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 08:30:33PM CET, ja...@redhat.com wrote: > >> >This comes from an end-user request, where they're running multiple VMs on > >> >hosts with bonded interfaces connected to some interest switch topologies, > >> >where 802.3ad isn't an option. They're currently running a proprietary > >> >solution that effectively achieves load-balancing of VMs and bandwidth > >> >utilization improvements with a similar form of transmission algorithm. > >> > > >> >Basically, each VM has it's own vlan, so it always sends its traffic out > >> >the same interface, unless that interface fails. Traffic gets split > >> >between the interfaces, maintaining a consistent path, with failover still > >> >available if an interface goes down. > >> > > >> >This has been rudimetarily tested to provide similar results, suitable for > >> >them to use to move off their current proprietary solution. > >> > > >> >Still on the TODO list, if these even looks sane to begin with, is > >> >fleshing out Documentation/networking/bonding.rst. > >> > >> Jarod, did you consider using team driver instead ? :) > > > >That's actually one of the things that was suggested, since team I believe > >already has support for this, but the user really wants to use bonding. > >We're finding that a lot of users really still prefer bonding over team. > > Do you know the reason, other than "nostalgia"?
I've heard a few different reasons that come to mind: 1) nostalgia is definitely one -- "we know bonding here" 2) support -- "the things I'm running say I need bonding to properly support failover in their environment". How accurate this is, I don't actually know. 3) monitoring -- "my monitoring solution knows about bonding, but not about team". This is probably easily fixed, but may or may not be in the user's direct control. 4) footprint -- "bonding does the job w/o team's userspace footprint". I think this one is kind of hard for team to do anything about, bonding really does have a smaller userspace footprint, which is a plus for embedded type applications and high-security environments looking to keep things as minimal as possible. I think I've heard a few "we tried team years ago and it didn't work" as well, which of course is ridiculous as a reason not to try something again, since a lot can change in a few years in this world. -- Jarod Wilson ja...@redhat.com
