See below Jared Mauch
On Apr 4, 2011, at 4:27 PM, Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> wrote: > On 04/04/2011 15:42, Jared Mauch wrote: >> Is there a reason you are not just doing per-flow? Have you looked at >> running LACP? > > LACP is orthogonal to the hashing algorithm. The hardware hashing does per flow only, so it is related :-) I've never seen hardware that does anything but at least. > >> I would leave per-packet as a last resort in almost any environment. > > I have seen per-packet cause performance gain, but only in extremely > distressed circumstances. You're right that it should generally be disabled, > because it causes all sorts of trouble. > True, but the topology sounds like diverse paths being used for load sharing vs redundancy. Lacp fast mode can help here too depending on the platform. Without knowing more it's hard to tell. But it sounds like an Ethernet topology and the 802.3 tools may help here. > Nick > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
