Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The title says it all :)

Well we have 2 links, one is 1MB (CIR/ dedicated), the other is 12MB (shared). 12MB one is not at all reliable too.. So what I want is to not lose my packets into the "black-hole" of the shared link, that's why I want per-flow packet steering, not per-packet. Right now we are using balance-rr, and that mode splits them evenly across the 2 links...

So I need per-flow load-balancing. I think balance-xor seems like the right choice, right?

share|improve this question
Can you provide more information about what problem you're trying to solve? The question currently reads like homework. – Shane Madden Aug 30 '13 at 6:01
up vote 2 down vote accepted

No, Mode 2 balances out each slave depending on the xmit_hash_policy. Whether you get one slave or the other depends on the NIC and/or the traffic. Trying to intentionally load balance different traffic out two slaves of different speeds is an unreliable crapshoot and not what Mode 2 is for.

LACP mandates all slaves have the same speed and duplex, so placing a 1M and 12M link into a Mode 4 bond is not a valid configuration.

To achieve what you describe, you'd use regular routing rules, or policy-based routing.

share|improve this answer
Thanks.. Policy-based routing was what we ended up using.. – Junaid Jul 15 '14 at 22:57

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.