On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 02:22:42PM +0800, Yanjun Zhu wrote: > > > On 2018/5/13 14:17, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 09:05:45AM +0800, Yanjun Zhu wrote: > > > > > > On 2018/5/12 22:55, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 10:24:03AM -0400, Tom Talpey wrote: > > > > > On 5/12/2018 9:54 AM, Zhu Yanjun wrote: > > > > > > When udp port 4791 is blocked, the udp port 4891 is used and vice versa. > > > > > Port 4891 is currently unassigned in the IANA registry. Do you intend > > > > > to request this? Strongly suggest that this not merge without such a > > > > > standard. > > > > > > > > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole idea looks to me like a hack, what will we do once the second > > > > port blocked too? Will we introduce option to add more ports? > > > The second port is a backup. When the first port 4791 is blocked, the port > > > 4891 will be used. At the same time, > > > some cleanup work will be done to make udp port 4791 work again. When 4891 > > > is blocked, 4791 is used again. > > > > > > It is like failover in bonding.:-) > > Right, so why don't you use bonding for that? > Based on my test results, there is a performance loss with bonding compared > with this feature because > the packets will pass bonding driver before directly pass to the real > physical NIC driver. I would like to see results, because RXE performance is far away from the lane rate and it is hard to imagine that something can hurt it even more. Thanks > > So it is necessary to use this feature. > > Zhu Yanjun > > > > Thanks > > > > > Zhu Yanjun > > > > Thanks >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
