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" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>: >> Hi Eduard, >> >> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Eduard Sinelnikov >> <[email protected]> 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 >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies >>> >> >> Peter >> >> -- >> Peter Senna Tschudin >> [email protected] >> gpg id: 48274C36 >> > >_______________________________________________ >Kernelnewbies mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
