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

[bill]

Hi, Eduard

Please put the cables back after change the mode to round robin,
and then ping the remote PC


The scenario is: 
1 Create a bond with 3 interfaces (connect them to switch). 
2 Change bond's mode to active/backup. 
3 Physicly remove two cables form interfaces ( not the active interface ). 
4 Change the mode to round robin.
5 Put the cables back
6 Try to ping some other computer.




bill




At 2011-07-31 23:15:22,"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.
>* 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
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Kernelnewbies mailing list
>Kernelnewbies at kernelnewbies.org
>http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20110801/c8fc6d5d/attachment.html