On 9/6/23 18:52, Tom Beecher wrote:
Well, not exactly the same thing. (But it's my mistake, I was
referring to L3 balancing, not L2 interface stuff.)
Fair enough.
load-balance per-packet will cause massive reordering, because it's
random spray , caring about nothing except equal loading of the
members. It's a last resort option that will cause tons of reordering.
(And they call that out quite clearly in docs.) If you don't care
about reordering it's great.
load-balance adaptive generally did a decent enough job last time I
used it much.
Yep, pretty much my experience too.
stateful was hit or miss ; sometimes it tested amazing, other times
not so much. But it wasn't a primary requirement so I never dove into why
Never tried stateful.
Moving 802.1Q trunk from N x 10Gbps LAG's to native 100Gbps links
resolved this load balancing conundrum for us. Of course, it works well
because we spread these router<=>switch links across several 100Gbps
ports, so no single trunk is ever that busy, even for customers buying N
x 10Gbps services.
Mark.
