And how does you bridge look like? To me the tap devices attached to the bridge don't work at all.
Stefan Am 11.02.2013 um 17:16 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER <[email protected]>: > Hi stefan, this is working for my with theses bond configs > > active-backup > -------------- > auto bond0 > iface bond0 inet manual > slaves eth0 eth1 > bond_miimon 100 > bond_mode active-backup > pre-up ifup eth0 eth1 > post-down ifdown eth0 eth1 > > > or lacp > ------- > auto bond1 > iface bond1 inet manual > bond-mode 4 > bond-miimon 100 > bond-lacp_rate fast > bond-xmit-hash-policy layer2+3 > slaves eth0 eth1 > > > ----- Mail original ----- > > De: "Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG" <[email protected]> > À: "Dietmar Maurer" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Alexandre DERUMIER" <[email protected]>, [email protected] > Envoyé: Lundi 11 Février 2013 16:40:13 > Objet: Re: [pve-devel] new bridge code doesn't work with redhat kernel > > Hello, > > please wait a bit i'll contact Patrick in a few minutes as i wanted to > switch to bonding today and it stops working again. > > Let's see how a real solution would look like. Right now i've the same > problem as alexandre that the VM is not reachable at all when using bond. > > Alexandre maybe you can tell me how you got your bonding working? > > My interfaces: > > auto bond0 > iface bond0 inet manual > slaves eth0 eth1 > bond_mode 802.3ad > bond_miimon 100 > bond_updelay 200 > bond_downdelay 10 > > auto vmbr0 > iface vmbr0 inet manual > bridge_ports bond0 > bridge_stp off > bridge_fd 0 > > But this results in no IP communication for the VM - even without using > any vlans. > > Stefan > Am 11.02.2013 09:42, schrieb Dietmar Maurer: >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Alexandre DERUMIER [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Freitag, 08. Februar 2013 08:12 >>> To: Stefan Priebe; Dietmar Maurer >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [pve-devel] new bridge code doesn't work with redhat kernel >>> >>> Hi Stefan, Thanks it's working ! (I have not aware of vlan-raw-device >>> syntax). >>> >>> Based of this, I have a better setup, putting ip addresse on vlan >>> interface, >>> and not on a bridge. >>> So it's a small change. >>> >>> But I really think this change should not go in stable pve repo before a >>> big >>> release like proxmox 2.3. >>> As It ll require reboot of the host to have clean bridges without mix of >>> tagged >>> interfaces and tagged bridges interfaces. >> >> 2.3 release is the next release planned end of February. There is a new >> kernel, and >> a new kvm (1.4, including new backup code), so we need to recommend a reboot >> anyways. >> >> Here is a list of advantages and disadvantages: >> >> new code: >> >> + works with any number of physical interfaces >> + works with gvrp >> - only tested by a few people >> - not fully compatible with existing vlan setup >> >> old code: >> >> + works well for many users >> + also used by RHEV/libvirt >> - needs exactly one physical interface (should also work with 0 physical >> interfaces) >> - gvrp does not work (https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/7/107) >> + can use vlan hardware support (better performance?) >> >> >> Seems GVRP is a rarely used feature, because it is very dangerous security >> wise. >> >> So what is your opinion: >> >> A.) keep old VLAN code (revert change) >> B.) use new VLAN code >> >> Please can we vote on that? Also include a short explanation why you prefer >> something. >> >> - Dietmar >> >> _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list [email protected] http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
