An AHV administrator wants to take advantage of both maximized network throughput and redundancy for some nodes.
Which bond mode should the administrator choose to fit this scenario?
An AHV administrator wants to take advantage of both maximized network throughput and redundancy for some nodes.
Which bond mode should the administrator choose to fit this scenario?
To achieve maximized network throughput and redundancy for some nodes, the best choice would be the 'balance-tcp' bond mode. 'balance-tcp' effectively utilizes multiple network links to provide higher throughput and redundancy by using dynamic link aggregation with LACP (Link Aggregation Control Protocol). This method balances the network traffic across multiple links and provides better fault tolerance by redistributing the load if one of the links fails, ensuring continued network performance without interruption.
B. balance-tcp
Naah, Nutanix doesn’t recommend balance-slb because of the multicast traffic caveats. To combine the bandwidth of multiple links, consider using link aggregation with LACP and balance-tcp instead of balance-slb. Don’t use balance-slb unless you verify that the multicast limitations described here aren’t present in your network.
Yeah and for the redundancy part, I know balance-tcp fails back to active-backup in case of a link failure. I'm not sure if the same is true of balance-slb
5.20 : active active
LACP with Balance-TCP Taking full advantage of bandwidth provided by multiple links to upstream switches, from a single VM, requires dynamically negotiated link aggregation and load balancing using balance-tcp. Nutanix recommends dynamic link aggregation with LACP instead of static link aggregation due to improved failure detection and recovery.