Re: Bond, round robin mis-config​uration.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Eduard Sinelnikov
<eduard.sinelnikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?

> * 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 <peter.senna@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> Hi Eduard,
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Eduard Sinelnikov
>> <eduard.sinelnikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 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.c
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>            Eduard
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Kernelnewbies mailing list
>>> Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
>>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> --
>> Peter Senna Tschudin
>> peter.senna@xxxxxxxxx
>> gpg id: 48274C36
>>
>



-- 
Peter Senna Tschudin
peter.senna@xxxxxxxxx
gpg id: 48274C36

_______________________________________________
Kernelnewbies mailing list
Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies



[Index of Archives]     [Newbies FAQ]     [Linux Kernel Mentors]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [IETF Annouce]     [Git]     [Networking]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ACPI]
  Powered by Linux