Are there 'services' that the network 'depends' on, but which are are
started *later* then network? Running 'service network restart' as a cure
suggests this. Do you have any special or custom init scripts relating
to your bonding (maybe something that loads special kernel modules or
At Fri, 09 Jul 2010 10:30:06 +0800 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org
wrote:
On Thursday, July 08, 2010 09:40 PM, JohnS wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 07:51 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
I think some bridge or vlan scenarios require promiscuous mode (and the
corresponding disabling of
On 08/07/10 15:41, Christopher Chan wrote:
No new boxes. Not possible for any other box to be assigned the same
ip internally via dhcp and definitely not the same Internet ip.
Exactly. DHCP server would check for a conflict before assigning an
address and is definitely not the source of the
Did not know that both had stopped. Conflicting IP addresses was just a
suggestion. May not be the problem at all. With bonding, breaking one
might break both down at the MAC level ...
Hmmm ... which bond mode are you using?
Why mode 4 of course.
The box with the problem just so
On 07/08/2010 05:08 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
Hmmm ... which bond mode are you using?
Why mode 4 of course.
Ouch. Never used that mode.
snip
mode=4 (802.3ad)
IEEE 802.3ad Dynamic link aggregation. Creates aggregation groups that
share the same speed and duplex settings. Utilizes all
On Thursday, July 08, 2010 05:09 PM, Kahlil Hodgson wrote:
On 07/08/2010 05:08 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
Hmmm ... which bond mode are you using?
Why mode 4 of course.
Ouch. Never used that mode.
Huh? Like why? It's the recommended mode unless the switch does not
suppoprt it or the
Christopher Chan wrote:
On Thursday, July 08, 2010 05:09 PM, Kahlil Hodgson wrote:
On 07/08/2010 05:08 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
Hmmm ... which bond mode are you using?
Why mode 4 of course.
Ouch. Never used that mode.
Huh? Like why? It's the recommended mode unless the switch does not
HiChristopher,
On 08/07/10 10:25, Christopher Chan wrote:
Why mode 4 of course.
Huh? Like why? It's the recommended mode unless the switch does not
suppoprt it or the boards don't.
I never realised this is the recommended mode. Do you have pointers
where it is recommended so that I can read
Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
Christopher Chan wrote:
On Thursday, July 08, 2010 05:09 PM, Kahlil Hodgson wrote:
On 07/08/2010 05:08 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
Hmmm ... which bond mode are you using?
Why mode 4 of course.
Ouch. Never used that mode.
Huh? Like why? It's the
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 07:51 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
I think some bridge or vlan scenarios require promiscuous mode (and the
corresponding disabling of hardware acceleration). Maybe the real issue is
that
something accidentally disabled it and you now only work when tcpdump
Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
HiChristopher,
On 08/07/10 10:25, Christopher Chan wrote:
Why mode 4 of course.
Huh? Like why? It's the recommended mode unless the switch does not
suppoprt it or the boards don't.
I never realised this is the recommended mode. Do you have pointers
where it is
JohnS wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 07:51 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
I think some bridge or vlan scenarios require promiscuous mode (and the
corresponding disabling of hardware acceleration). Maybe the real issue is
that
something accidentally disabled it and you now only work when
Les Mikesell wrote:
Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
Christopher Chan wrote:
On Thursday, July 08, 2010 05:09 PM, Kahlil Hodgson wrote:
On 07/08/2010 05:08 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
Hmmm ... which bond mode are you using?
Why mode 4 of course.
Ouch. Never used that mode.
Huh? Like
On Thursday, July 08, 2010 09:40 PM, JohnS wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 07:51 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
I think some bridge or vlan scenarios require promiscuous mode (and the
corresponding disabling of hardware acceleration). Maybe the real issue is
that
something accidentally
On 06/07/10 22:48, Les Mikesell wrote:
Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
Christopher Chan wrote:
And now the thing is working again...
It's not working again.
Running tcpdump -i vlan seems to trigger something to get the network
working again but as soon as I stop tcpdump...nada, zip,
On Thursday, July 08, 2010 09:26 AM, Kahlil Hodgson wrote:
On 06/07/10 22:48, Les Mikesell wrote:
Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
Christopher Chan wrote:
And now the thing is working again...
It's not working again.
Running tcpdump -i vlan seems to trigger something to get the network
On 08/07/10 14:58, Christopher Chan wrote:
If you have two machines on the same network with the same IP address
you get behaviour like this. Had this happen once when an engineer
reset a UPSs and it took on the IP address of a main switch.
arpwatch is your friend.
Unfortunately all
On Thursday, July 08, 2010 01:32 PM, Kahlil Hodgson wrote:
On 08/07/10 14:58, Christopher Chan wrote:
If you have two machines on the same network with the same IP address
you get behaviour like this. Had this happen once when an engineer
reset a UPSs and it took on the IP address of a main
And now the thing is working again...
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Christopher Chan wrote:
And now the thing is working again...
It's not working again.
Running tcpdump -i vlan seems to trigger something to get the network
working again but as soon as I stop tcpdump...nada, zip, zilch.
Any ideas? I see no errors in the logs whether of the switch or the box,
Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
Christopher Chan wrote:
And now the thing is working again...
It's not working again.
Running tcpdump -i vlan seems to trigger something to get the network
working again but as soon as I stop tcpdump...nada, zip, zilch.
Any ideas? I see no errors in
Les Mikesell wrote:
Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
Christopher Chan wrote:
And now the thing is working again...
It's not working again.
Running tcpdump -i vlan seems to trigger something to get the network
working again but as soon as I stop tcpdump...nada, zip, zilch.
Any ideas? I
On Tuesday, July 06, 2010 09:21 PM, Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
Christopher Chan wrote:
And now the thing is working again...
It's not working again.
Running tcpdump -i vlan seems to trigger something to get the network
working
Hi all,
I have a box with a quad port Netxen NIC running Centos 5. All four
interfaces are slaves of bond0 and bond0 is used by two vlan interfaces.
All was working just fine until just recently when everything just
stopped working. ethtool reports all the individual interfaces are just
fine.
24 matches
Mail list logo
