On 9/6/23 18:52, Tom Beecher wrote:
Well, not exactly the same thing. (But it's my mistake, I was referring to L3 balancing, not L2 interface stuff.)
Fair enough.
load-balance per-packet will cause massive reordering, because it's random spray , caring about nothing except equal loading of the members. It's a last resort option that will cause tons of reordering. (And they call that out quite clearly in docs.) If you don't care about reordering it's great.
load-balance adaptive generally did a decent enough job last time I used it much.
Yep, pretty much my experience too.
stateful was hit or miss ; sometimes it tested amazing, other times not so much. But it wasn't a primary requirement so I never dove into why
Never tried stateful. Moving 802.1Q trunk from N x 10Gbps LAG's to native 100Gbps links resolved this load balancing conundrum for us. Of course, it works well because we spread these router<=>switch links across several 100Gbps ports, so no single trunk is ever that busy, even for customers buying N x 10Gbps services. Mark.