Simon, Thank you for looking at this with me.
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Simon Wunderlich <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmm. What you should see after enabling bonding would be a similar usage of > both interfaces. I guess each tap interfaces of node1 is "directly connected" > to the other tap interface of node2, right? Could you please share your > outputs of: Yes, the tap interfaces behave as if they are directly connected together. > batctl originators > batctl originators -i tap0 > batctl originators -i tap1 I've put all the output in a pastebin as to not clog up everyone's inbox: http://pastebin.com/6fqUUUYq > Please note that the bonding will only benefit under some circumstances, as > far > as my experiments have shown: > > * since its round robin, you'll only see a benefit if the worst link does not > have less than 50% throughput of the best one - otherwise it will slow the > other links down. > * different latencies or buffering delays in the links may lead to out of > order > packets, and not every payload traffic likes that. > > I could see some improvement when having two equal wifi links though. In any > case, please thoroughly test it before applying that to your 3g/4g > application, there may be some pitfalls. I'd be also very interested in your > findings. :) > > Thanks, > Simon Regardless of its potential impact on performance, I think it's worth a look and test to see if there may be some potential benefit. Currently this setup is working nice in that it's a true case of point to point redundant links. If additional links could be added or removed at will to enhance throughput I would see this useful in a variety of applications. Currently, I'd like to just reproduce what the function was originally designed to do and then go from there. Thanks again for the help. Ray
