I don't have any problems with adding this rule, but are you sure about round-robin? Did you have a look at queue-depth? round-robin has severe limits, e.g. it doesn't check the utilization of a link, if one link fails, all others are taken out as well.

I'll merged it for now. If someone complains, it's easy to change :)

I don't have any problems with adding this rule, but are you sure about round-robin? Did you have a look at queue-depth? round-robin has severe limits, e.g. it doesn't check the utilization of a link, if one link fails, all others are taken out as well.

Sorry, I missed responding to this. I will investigate queue-depth further and report back here.
Could you elaborate a bit on the single link failure taking down other links? We haven’t seen that kind of behaviour in our testing so far.

thanks!

Ah, no worries.

It's been a while since I last played with round-robin, but IIRC, the failing path significantly impacted the good paths for a while. It might also be related to the transport used, e.g., FC. Anyway, I can't remember the details, but generally, we (SUSE) advise using queue-depth as it results in better performance and handles error cases more effectively. @mwilck has a bit more experience with this.