Nate, Thanks for you input. 802.3ad seems better but I am not in a position to terminate both links in the same switch or same stack. What about mode 6? Thanks Paras. On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:31 PM, nate <centos at linuxpowered.net> wrote: > Paras pradhan wrote: > > I have a bonded interface running in mode 1 which is active/passive and > no > > issue with this. I need to change it to mode 0 for active/active setup. > Does > > mode 0 is dependent on the switches configuration? My setup is: 2 links > from > > bonded interface is connected to different switches. > > You really should go the 802.3ad route (mode=4) if anything, this > does require switch support. You can get unpredictable results with > mode=0, and if you want best performance and availability stick > to 802.3ad, which does require going to the same switch(or stack > of switches). > > Myself with bonding on linux I use only mode=1. > > Another user like yourself posted on this topic a few months ago > asking the same kind of question, and went down the non-802.3ad > route and had major issues. > > Also note that your single-stream performance will not exceed that > of a single link between hosts. So if your doing a file transfer > between two hosts for example and you have several 1GbE links > between them the throughput of that transfer will not exceed > 1Gbps. Load balancing is done on a per MAC/IP/tcp port basis > depending on the equipment in use. > > 10GbE is really cheap these days(cheaper than 1GbE in some cases > on a per Gb basis) if you need faster performance, and simple > to configure, I wrote a blog on this a couple of months ago: > > http://www.techopsguys.com/2009/11/17/affordable-10gbe-has-arrived/ > > nate > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20100113/a3234861/attachment-0005.html>