tolien or network gurus: quick question for you :)
- Thread starter wesley
- Start date
In MLPPP you "bond" to physical connections into 1 logical link. Generally you'd have a single IP and effectively a single connection.
With load balancing you have 2 connections, 2 pipes etc. When you open a new connection the load balancer selects the least used link to use. The method of load balancing can change from single round robins to more complex fail over or throughput balancing.
To think of a comparison MLPPP = RAID array, 2 disks that appear as 1 large disk with near double performance
Load balancing = 2 disks, 1 for the OS and 1 for programs/games
If that makes sense
With load balancing you have 2 connections, 2 pipes etc. When you open a new connection the load balancer selects the least used link to use. The method of load balancing can change from single round robins to more complex fail over or throughput balancing.
To think of a comparison MLPPP = RAID array, 2 disks that appear as 1 large disk with near double performance
Load balancing = 2 disks, 1 for the OS and 1 for programs/games
If that makes sense
If you have 2 applications, such as 2 downloads 1 maxing out on each line then yes you can max them out. Or torrents for example can benifit from both lines. You can't however split a single connection, over 2 load balanced lines or the sequence numbers wont match up. With MLPPP the packets are split over the lines and resequenced at the exchange, with load balancing the lines are never reassembled so you need 2 connections with 2 sets of sequence numbers to benifit from 2 lines. If I make sense?
Im not sure- i've been reading the other thread.
You could load balance between 2 lines, its dead easy to do in linux with 2 route tables and load balance between the tables by giving them both the same priority. With an application such as Flashget which opens multiple simultaneous connections to a single source to download, you can put half the parallel connections on 1 pipe and half on the other. This would give you a good speed like he saw
You could load balance between 2 lines, its dead easy to do in linux with 2 route tables and load balance between the tables by giving them both the same priority. With an application such as Flashget which opens multiple simultaneous connections to a single source to download, you can put half the parallel connections on 1 pipe and half on the other. This would give you a good speed like he saw
something like this...
edit: saying that, if you connect to the same IP linux may cache the interface last used for that route.. you'll have to look into it
Code:
ip route add 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth1 src 192.168.1.3 table T1
ip route add default via 192.168.1.1 table T1
ip route add 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth2 src 192.168.0.3 table T2
ip route add default via 192.168.0.1 table T2
ip route add 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth1 src 192.168.1.3
ip route add 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth2 src 192.168.0.3
ip rule add from 192.168.1.3 table T1
ip route add 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth2 table T1
ip route add 127.0.0.0/8 dev lo table T1
ip rule add from 192.168.0.3 table T2
ip route add 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth1 table T2
ip route add 127.0.0.0/8 dev lo table T2
ip route add default scope global nexthop via 192.168.1.1 dev eth1 weight 1 \
nexthop via 192.168.0.1 dev eth2 weight 1edit: saying that, if you connect to the same IP linux may cache the interface last used for that route.. you'll have to look into it
Last edited:
It's just two network connections 192.168.0.3 and 192.168.1.3, with a route to chuck traffic out of both with the same metric.
IME, MLPPP really didn't like the connections in the bundle rate adapting. You might find load balancing and multi-threaded transfers work better if your connection is unstable, but bigredshark's got an MLPPP setup running so he'd be the best to ask.
IME, MLPPP really didn't like the connections in the bundle rate adapting. You might find load balancing and multi-threaded transfers work better if your connection is unstable, but bigredshark's got an MLPPP setup running so he'd be the best to ask.
No idea, unless the speedtest's multithreaded there's no way you'd get the speed of both connections with just load balancing.
As long as the tracker was aware of both IPs, you'd have no trouble with torrents.
Usenet lets you have more than one connection, so as long as the server had no problem with it you could load balance that too.
As long as the tracker was aware of both IPs, you'd have no trouble with torrents.
Usenet lets you have more than one connection, so as long as the server had no problem with it you could load balance that too.
