Please keep replies on the list. > That's a good point for why a TCP flow cannot be distributed > to different links simultaneously. Thanks a lot. > But the TCP SACK mode can handle the out of order issue, isn't it?
I'm not a tcp expert. My understanding is that out of order packets typically cause tcp backoffs. I may be wrong on this point, but in general networking equipment tries to deliver packets in order for this reason. Even if tcp can handle it gracefully, a bonding implementation that consistently delivers packets out of order is incorrect. Ethan > > 2012/4/7 Ethan Jackson <[email protected]> >> >> >> OVS can't distribute packets of the same flow to different interfaces. >> >> As far as I know, this is typical of all bonding implementations. If >> you send packets from the same flow down different links, they may >> arrive at the destination out of order. This can wreak havoc on tcp >> stacks. >> >> >> OVS can't really achieve balance/fairness between flows. >> >> OVS can't dynamically switch a flow between different interfaces on the >> >> fly based on the bandwidth utilization. >> >> This isn't true, if one slave is receiving quite a bit more traffic >> than another, some flows will be rebalanced to the less loaded one. >> By default this is done once every 10 seconds, but that's >> configurable. >> >> >> So it means the LACP implemented in OVS is not mature? >> >> Or it's just the nature of LACP? It needs extra QoS scheme to achieve >> >> real balance and full bandwidth utilization? >> >> This is just the nature of bonding implementations. >> >> Ethan >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
