Re: Bond, round robin mis-configuration.
From: Eduard Sinelnikov <hidden>
Date: 2011-08-01 05:50:14
I have put the bond down: 'ifconfig bond0 down.' Then changed the mode: 'echo 1 > /sys/class/net/bond0/bonding/mode' Without puting the bond down, you couldn't change the mode. 2011/7/31 Peter Senna Tschudin [off-list ref]:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Eduard Sinelnikov [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Hi, The scenario is: * Create a bond with 3 interfaces (connect them to switch). * Change bond's mode to active/backup. * Physicly remove two cables form interfaces ( not the active interface ). * Put the cables back * Change the mode to round robin.How did you change the mode?quoted
* Try to ping some other computer. Now only one interface is pinging to remote computer. Without removing the cables all three interface will ping to remote computer periodicly. I did some debuging,in the code, and I see that in round robin all the interface is in active (and all of them transmiting periodically). After removing and puting back the cables(in active/backup mode). the interfaces change their status to backup. After this only one interface is transmiting ( the one which was the active). Thanks in advance, ? ? ? ? ? Eduard 2011/7/31 Peter Senna Tschudin [off-list ref]:quoted
Hi Eduard, On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Eduard Sinelnikov [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Hi, In the kernel 2.6.39.3 ( /drivers/net/bond/bond_main.c).I followed the code you mentioned. The file is actually at: ./drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.cquoted
In the function ??bond_xmit_roundrobin? The code check if the bond is active via ?bond_is_active_slave(slave)? Function call. Which actually checks if the slave is backup or active What is the meaning of slave being ?backup in round robin mode? Correct me if I wrong but in round robin every slave should send a packet, regardless of being active or backup.I'm not sure about this but my best guess is that even using all slaves to send packages, the slaves must be used one at a time, to send packages sequentially. And one slave can be deactivated when a problem is detected. I think that this two scenarios that justify the check.quoted
Thank you, ? ? ? ? ? ?Eduard _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies at kernelnewbies.org http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbiesPeter -- Peter Senna Tschudin peter.senna at gmail.com gpg id: 48274C36-- Peter Senna Tschudin peter.senna at gmail.com gpg id: 48274C36