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

[Eduard Sinelnikov]

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 <peter.senna at gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Eduard Sinelnikov
> <eduard.sinelnikov at gmail.com> 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 at gmail.com>:
>>> Hi Eduard,
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Eduard Sinelnikov
>>> <eduard.sinelnikov at gmail.com> 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 at kernelnewbies.org
>>>> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
>>>>
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter Senna Tschudin
>>> peter.senna at gmail.com
>>> gpg id: 48274C36
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Senna Tschudin
> peter.senna at gmail.com
> gpg id: 48274C36
>