[Gluster-users] Teaming vs Bond?

[Mahdi Adnan]

Hi,


In general and not in Gluster.

we used Teaming for some time and we switched back to Bonding because we had issues with the load balancing of Teaming.

With teaming config was "LACP, eth,ipv4,ipv6" the results was one interface utilized more then the other one, and in some cases one interface gets fully utilized, while with Bonding, config we are using is "xmit_hash_policy=layer2+3" or "xmit_hash_policy=layer3+4", load distributed evenly on all interfaces.

Of course it depends on the application and the server setup but, since then we only are using Bonding whenever we need load balancing and we had no issues so far.



--

Respectfully
Mahdi A. Mahdi

________________________________
From: gluster-users-bounces at gluster.org <gluster-users-bounces at gluster.org> on behalf of wk <wkmail at bneit.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 10:59:58 PM
To: gluster-users at gluster.org
Subject: [Gluster-users] Teaming vs Bond?

I'm looking at tuning up a new site and the bonding issue came up

A google search reveals that the gluster docs (and Lindsay) recommend
balance-alb bonding.

However, "team"ing came up which I wasn't familiar with. Its already in
RH6/7 and Ubuntu and their Github page implies its stable.

The libteam.org people seem to feel their solution is more lightweight
and it seems easy enough to setup.

Before I go down this path, I was curious if anyone had any
experience/comments with 'team'

It would be nice to get a little speed bump essentially for free.

-bill




_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users at gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20170618/385b3cce/attachment.html>