Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5.7 Ethernet bonding - order of enslavement matters?

2011-10-21 Thread Emmanuel Noobadmin
On 10/19/11, whitivery co55-s...@dea.spamcon.org wrote: Thank you for the reply, but I don't think that this is the issue. Otherwise bonding failover wouldn't work at all. When enslaved in order eth1 eth0, bonding and link detection work properly - with eth0 set as primary, I pull the eth0

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5.7 Ethernet bonding - order of enslavement matters?

2011-10-19 Thread whitivery
Emmanuel Noobadmin centos.ad...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/13/11, whitivery co55-s...@dea.spamcon.org wrote: Eth0 is the onboard device, using an updated VIA Velocity driver (velocityget 1.42 instead of default via-velocity): 05:00.0 Ethernet controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT6120/VT6121/VT6122

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5.7 Ethernet bonding - order of enslavement matters?

2011-10-13 Thread whitivery
whitivery co55-s...@dea.spamcon.org wrote: Setting up bonding in active-backup mode 1 (using ARP monitoring) on a server, it looked OK, but pulling the active link cable didn't actually work, it didn't fail over. Eventually with manual playing around with modprobe, ifconfig, ifenslave, etc., a

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5.7 Ethernet bonding - order of enslavement matters?

2011-10-13 Thread Emmanuel Noobadmin
On 10/13/11, whitivery co55-s...@dea.spamcon.org wrote: Eth0 is the onboard device, using an updated VIA Velocity driver (velocityget 1.42 instead of default via-velocity): 05:00.0 Ethernet controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT6120/VT6121/VT6122 Gigabit Ethernet Adapter (rev 82) Eth1 is a