On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Digimer wrote: > On 20/11/13 19:47, aurfalien wrote: >> >> On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:44 PM, Digimer wrote: >> >>> On 20/11/13 19:25, aurfalien wrote: >>>> >>>> On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Digimer wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 20/11/13 19:04, aurfalien wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Wondering if this is the proper bridging technique to use for Centos6+KVM; >>>>>> >>>>>> http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/KVM >>>>>> >>>>>> Before I embark on this again, I would like to do it by the book. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks in advance, >>>>>> >>>>>> - aurf >>>>> >>>>> Personally, I do this: >>>>> >>>>> https://alteeve.ca/w/2-Node_Red_Hat_KVM_Cluster_Tutorial#Configuring_The_Bridge >>>>> >>>>> It gives the VMs direct access to the outside network, as if they were >>>>> normal servers. I've used this setup for years without issue under many >>>>> different VMs with various OSes. >>>>> >>>>> cheers >>>> >>>> Many many thanks, will use it. >>>> >>>> Sounds like it will bode well concerning jumbo frames. >>>> >>>> - aurf >>> >>> Jumbo frames should be fine. I don't generally use it myself, but I have >>> tested it with success. Just be sure to enable it on the bridge and >>> slaved devices. Simply adding 'MTU="xxxx"' to each ifcfg-x file should >>> be sufficient. >>> >>> -- >>> Digimer Man, really sorry to bug as this seems begnin as I've done this numerous time but on non bridged ints. When I add MTU=9000 to the bridged int, I get; RNETLINK answers invalid argument My phys int is showing jumbo but the bridged int is showing standard. - aurf _______________________________________________ CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
