Hi Guus, You did a fantastic work on "ifenslave" (interface to bonding capabilities in kernel) -- thank you. This new and experimental software has only potential to become an alternative to "ifenslave" one day.
> > URL: https://libteam.org > > That URL does not work, use either http://libteam.org/ or > https://fedorahosted.org/libteam/. Thanks for correction. (It's a bit strange as I was copy-pasting from my browser' address field...) > Dramatically different? Many advantages? That tells me nothing. Instead > please just give a list of *user visible* advantages that libteam has over > bonding. Why focus only on user visible changes? Upstream is trying to make bonding/teaming safer, easier and more maintainable by moving it to user space. Perhaps the following links will answer your question better than me: http://www.pirko.cz/teamdev.pp.pdf https://fedorahosted.org/libteam/wiki/CompareToBonding To provide summary here I quote from above documents: Following table compares Bonding vs. Team features: https://fedorahosted.org/libteam/wiki/CompareToBonding [Feature] [Bonding] [Team] broadcast TX policy Yes Yes round-robin TX policy Yes Yes active-backup TX policy Yes Yes LACP (802.3ad) support Yes Yes Hash-based TX policy Yes Yes User can set hash function No Yes TX load-balancing support (TLB) Yes Yes RX load-balancing support (ALB) Yes Yes (Wip) LACP hash port select Yes Yes load-balancing for LACP support No Yes Ethtool link monitoring Yes Yes ARP link monitoring Yes Yes NS/NA (IPV6) link monitoring No Yes ports up/down delays Yes Yes port priorities and stickiness ("primary" option enhancement) No Yes separate per-port link monitoring setup No Yes multiple link monitoring setup Limited Yes lockless TX/RX path No (rwlock) Yes (RCU) VLAN support Yes Yes user-space runtime control Limited Full Logic in user-space No Yes Extensibility Hard Easy Modular design No Yes Performance overhead Low Very Low D-Bus interface No Yes --- ## Bonding driver * Introduced in 2000 * Huge and messy, therefore buggy * All logic is in kernel (monolith) * Does what it should not do (ARP link validation, 802.3ad, ...) * Too many config interfaces * 12200 lines * Not fixable due to backward compatibility concerns --- ## Team device overview * Team is coming with modular approach * User-space based controlling * Minimum of the code is in kernel * "Puppet" * Control logic is implemented in user-space daemon * "Puppeteer" * Enslaved network interfaces are called "ports" * Only necessary fast-path code. (1400 lines) * Netlink communication (generic Netlink). (600 lines) * Team "modes" * One mode, one kernel module * Determine basic low-level behaviour * Well defined API between team core and mode code * round-robin, active-backup, ... easy to add more ### Advantages comparing to bonding * Extensibility. Anyone can easily add features/change behaviour * Better system stability (daemon crash is always better than kernel panic/memory corruption etc.) * Better debugging posibilities. The goal of team device is to supersede bonding functionality and then kill it eventually. -- Regards, Dmitry. P.S. I hope that answers your questions. Please let me know if you think teaming do not worth time spent on it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201212140934.17408.only...@member.fsf.org
