On 09/14/2012 09:40 PM, Phil Pennock wrote:
On 2012-09-14 at 07:17 -1000, Paul Graydon wrote:
Under circumstances with which a port goes down, would the link
aggregation generally be fine?
Define "down"?
If the port has no signal, sure it gets taken out. But failures aren't
always so clean.
In that context I meant literally down. No functioning port.
For instance, a dirty cable with noise causing corruption might cause
checksums to fail and retransmissions, but the link is up and in use.
Or the device on the far side might be wedged such that it keeps the
link "up" with protocol management reporting health but doesn't actually
forward packets.
This is more what I'm thinking about though. Is there any resiliency
stuff built in to link aggregation. e.g. if you're having to do a lot
more re-transmissions of packets down a particular path, maybe reduce or
eliminate the path from use? (all the while there are sufficient
additional ports, naturally)
Paul
_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
Tech@lists.lopsa.org
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
