Lustre discuss - Jul 2006 - Kernel Channel Bonding vs. Lustre's built-in Link Aggregation

Hello,

I am trying to figure out whether CFS reccomends using kernel channel
bonding or Lustre''s built-in link aggregation to maximize
Lustre''s
throughput.

If I have lustre''s link aggregation setup like so for OST''s,
the MDS,
and clients:

options lnet ip2nets="tcp(eth0,eth1,eth2,eth3) *.*.*.*;"

Would that provide better or worse throughput that using four-port
ethernet round-robbin channel bonding? Assuming concurrent access to
several large files on many OST''s.

Does Lustre''s built-in link aggregation increase availability? For
instance, if eth0 and eth1 go down, will Lustre be able to use eth2
and eth3 without reporting i/o errors?

Thanks