On 07/08/12 17:00, centos-request at centos.org wrote: > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 21:34:43 +0200 > From: Alexander Dalloz <ad+lists at uni-x.org> > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Configure LAGG Interface? > To: centos at centos.org > Message-ID: <50201C53.2070300 at uni-x.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Am 06.08.2012 19:44, schrieb Rainer Duffner: >> > >> > Am 06.08.2012 um 19:22 schrieb Cal Sawyer <cal-s at blue-bolt.com>: >> > >>> >> In my experience, LAG/LACP won't provide aggregatation, only failover >>> >> and fault tolerance. For link aggregation, you don't need to configure >>> >> the switch ports - just set bonding to mode=6 for balanced >>> >> transmit/receive and plug up the the NICs to a group of ports on the >>> >> switch. However, balance-alb doesn't help with single stream rsync/FTP >>> >> sessions, etc, but helps a lot with concurrent transmits/receives as >>> >> encountered in typical fileserver scenarios. >>> >> >> > >> > >> > On FreeBSD, you don't get 2*1 Gbit from A to B, but 1*1 Gbit from A to B and another 1*1 Gbit from C to B. >> > "B" being the server with the LAGG interface. Yup, as i said, which isn't too bad (imho). "Real" LAG/LACP can't provide 2x bandwidth for one stream either, can it? >> > >> > How is that in CentOS? > It is of course the same, as long as we speak about standardized 802.3ad > protocol. > > Alexander The nice thing about balance-alb is that you don't have to care (or forget, in my case) about how the switch is configured. Ever come across a switch that "someone else" has set up LAGs on but nobody can remember (or admit) why? ) Throw arpwatch on the bonded-NICs server and see how the bonded interface flips between the slave MACs as intended - cal