你想用这个链接做什么?从制造商完全披露，如果他们使用绑定，有什么选项是可用的，如果有必要调整时，考虑使用这样的链接。例如，可能最常用的802.3ad通常被称为LACP，原因有很多，包括典型的低CPU占用率，通常需要在低功耗(瓦数)、低CPU功率的设备上，如果您在这样的场景中，单个客户端或多个客户端通过一个管道访问一个服务器，802.3ad在绑定场景中通常不起作用。有一些关于为什么这是真的的文章，比如我最近在一个Mikrotik论坛上重读了一篇关于常见错误或类似的文章。如果可以，其他绑定选项可能会表现得更好。在大多数“哑”无线管道中，只要有多个用户通过它访问多个服务器，802.3ad通常会工作得很好。像Cambium这样的公司可以，如果他们选择给客户他们需要的东西，知道收音机是否在一个场景中工作得很好，也许他们已经做了，比如他们使用什么频道绑定。它们也可以在GUI中，或者以其他方式让网络运营商知道有多少流量通过每个绑定通道。如果绑定解决方案在特定的设置中工作良好，这通常是故障排除中必要的信息。 I haven’t tried these radios myself but what has been shared thus far might be an indication although you may have iperf setup to not work well with bonding it may or may not be reflective in throughput depending on how well the bonding solution works with the traffic you are intending to pass. That’s often why if bonding is used such as in licensed links many operators such as myself would if possible prefer the radio not do bonding itself unless complete disclose and potential different bonding solutions are possible and instead would prefer one interface such as an Ethernet or fiber port capable of fulling supporting the wireless traffic on a particular band such as a 40mhz channel. that way if needed the operator can choose what bonding techniques would work best and appropriately invest in hardware that can meet those needs. If for example one server / router is the end point for traffic going through a link 802.3ad will not work well and investing in bonding horsepower not typically in lower power radios would be necessary. Food for thought anyways.
