On Thursday 16 September 2010 00:39:06 Ben Pfaff wrote: > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:37:13PM +0000, Jesse Gross wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I was under the impression that those corner cases were problems > > > specific to the type of bonding that OVS already implements; that is, > > > bonding where the first-hop switch was unaware of and not participating > > > in the bond. Doesn't LACP, etc. avoid that kind of problem, acting > > > much more like a single link than SLB does? > > > > Yes, LACP should be much more resilient to these types of issues. > > However, I don't think that LACP will help in this particular > > situation since the physical switches are cheap and not stacked. > > Linux supports a half dozen different types of bonding though (at > > least some which probably have issues with OVS) and apparently they > > don't work together at all on any released kernel version, so I > > wouldn't say that it is either supported or encouraged. > > OK, great, agreed on all points here.
Do you have access to the openvswitch-xcp.spec? If yes, can I get it please to verify if there are more changes like path fixes? _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_openvswitch.org
