[asterisk-users] Breaking news, but what happened? 11.000 channels on one server

[David Backeberg]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 12:50 PM, John A. Sullivan
III<jsullivan at opensourcedevel.com> wrote:
> You don't necessarily need a switch to support it.  One can use alb mode
> in Linux on any old switch and it works reasonably well other than for
> some excessive ARP traffic.  However, as we found out the hard way when
> building our Nexenta SAN, bonding works very well with many-to-many
> traffic but does very little to boost one-to-one network flows.  They
> will all collapse to the same pair of NICs in most scenarios and, in the
> one mode where they do not, packet sequencing issues will reduce the
> bandwidth to much less than the sum of the connections.  Take care -

Your claims make sense for a typical
Machine A has one IP address
Machine B has one IP address

And there is only one route between A and B. In this scenario, yes,
all calls take same route.

But what about giving each machine two addresses, two routes. And
halve your calls between the two paths between the same systems.
Doesn't this get around your problem, and allow you a chance to
saturate double the number of interfaces?

If you have four interfaces (as my new boxes do), lather, rinse,
repeat. Anybody have any reason why spreading the bandwidth across
multiple routes wouldn't get around this problem?