From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fhigh-b5-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b5-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78B1A3B29D for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2025 09:45:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-compute-08.internal (phl-compute-08.phl.internal [10.202.2.48]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD288254010C for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2025 09:45:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-imap-09 ([10.202.2.99]) by phl-compute-08.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 06 Jun 2025 09:45:33 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lochnair.net; h= cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1749217533; x=1749303933; bh=epe0t6+Sb8 mhkfsO/+k5HZFyJ6xQ1GjCM7dJjRPSVto=; b=bCsDTV3IAcyc+frfSc2s+PIe8e gejei2Qrch1ZvMDflwA90NHjqGCUwaac3LjJ/uZBXS1i3nDS8pVIiNTmGL8LoELv FcUOzUwhr4s76J+sZ8vedhFKO0V7BXG+4L/zsj7KxeC9Fvd3PZu/BBH113K+GVv0 1EFy3RYI+M6FW8fvkRXdzoKvrMnqT23yj53e/j4RsNNIzmdW3yScExCpMimYr1Iq gL/+SWqwS+QRFS1e+s8uRcS/ug5MVWWNcM80vUrGuOGPmtSDUU6I+SoGH8do98Wn oYMdY3Sb3AzuXCIQ/jpKT9+/Tquo+VTwlL6ivPqpHhygg3aaxMf39u8Ri3dg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t= 1749217533; x=1749303933; bh=epe0t6+Sb8mhkfsO/+k5HZFyJ6xQ1GjCM7d JjRPSVto=; b=kRKsBCzblxGIkhQtRTI5cVL3jd40DASy1zHuqJvJV5Ibliu3fWF J0dqOGutO/Skh8GndCZJxYXNgXvnSQiFJBdNzY1/C6Y9SC2XbyMYEYiDhpA9aBou BsU7Ewrk8MZliQSvH8cbj4hXyvaxjMF3gbSb52r2tXvesb7cEVFqeGipzknEZqm5 3u3cXxFMU2XbUS2MNbS2KMjIwzmLvI2wdnTfnbSiWDOZ7kb0vznVr4elnYrBlNyK LayEfMzHUx4i9NwRG78yZMtm9t3ipC1PFaqvSE7sMshW6CKhs2iyeRCHnYDGGiZh 1ShkqrF3QQakSILj+p/LWQUMtvIe3c6S4Wg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtddugdehudejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfu rfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnh htshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepofggfffhvffkjghfufgtsegrtderreertddtnecu hfhrohhmpedfpfhilhhsucetnhgurhgvrghsucfuvhgvvgdfuceomhgvsehlohgthhhnrg hirhdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepueegvddvtdefhfehlefgleehhfeltefh jeejffehtdfgtedthfeiheduiefftdffnecuffhomhgrihhnpegsuhhffhgvrhgslhhorg htrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhho mhepmhgvsehlohgthhhnrghirhdrnhgvthdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepuddpmhhouggvpe hsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtoheptggrkhgvsehlihhsthhsrdgsuhhffhgvrhgslhho rghtrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i6a5b4305:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.phl.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 5B97F3020064; Fri, 6 Jun 2025 09:45:33 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThreadId: T86a21539e26154d8 Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2025 20:45:12 +0700 From: "Nils Andreas Svee" To: "Cake List" Message-Id: <196300b6-d329-46ea-ac32-e564c2bfbc18@app.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=5e19343ff436462d84173f7a94aec16d Subject: Re: [Cake] CAKE on the bonding interface (master) or the bondedinterfaces (slaves)? X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2025 13:45:34 -0000 --5e19343ff436462d84173f7a94aec16d Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Are you using the shaper (i.e. setting a bandwidth) or shaping on ingress as well? If so, I'd apply CAKE on the virtual NIC, but if you're running line rate and have a physical NIC with BQL support in the driver, I'd do each individual NIC (assuming the bonding driver isn't able to do BQL) Best Regards Nils On Thu, Jan 16, 2025, at 09:57, cam enih via Cake wrote: > Hi CAKE folks, > > I'm new to traffic shaping, just a quick question here: > > I have this virtual NIC set up and a few physical NICs bonded to it. Shall I apply the CAKE algorithm on the virtual one or the physical ones, or all of them? If either can do it, which is the best? > > Thanks, > Eric > _______________________________________________ > Cake mailing list > Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake > --5e19343ff436462d84173f7a94aec16d Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Are you usin= g the shaper (i.e. setting a bandwidth) or shaping on ingress as well?

If so, I'd apply CAKE on the virtual NIC, but if= you're running line rate and have a physical NIC with BQL support in th= e driver, I'd do each individual NIC

(assuming = the bonding driver isn't able to do BQL)

Best Regards
Nils

On Thu, Jan 16, 2025, at 09= :57, cam enih via Cake wrote:
Hi CAKE folks,

= I'm new to traffic shaping, just a quick question here:

I have this virtual NIC set up and a few physical NIC= s bonded to it. Shall I apply the CAKE algorithm on the virtual one or t= he physical ones, or all of them? If either can do it, which is the best= ?

Thanks,
Eric
______= _________________________________________

--5e19343ff436462d84173f7a94aec16d--