Hmm, I see nothing in that link that says the number is required. Plus, I see these in the bonding.txt kernel documentation:
" Options with textual values will accept either the text name or, for backwards compatibility, the option value. E.g., "mode=802.3ad" and "mode=4" set the same mode." "BONDING_MODULE_OPTS="mode=active-backup miimon=100"" What's more, I think the textual mode references make more sense to the non-expert Linux admin -- especailly someone who used to be a Windows admin and is used to Windows NIC "teaming". But this is just my opinion :-). So, having said that, I tried the number and no-dice. After reading that article -- which is by no means clear as to what bug it's referring to -- it may be that I require both the BONDING_OPTS in the ifcfg-bond0 and 1 files _AND_ the modprobe.conf entries. Is that how anyone else reads it? -Dave. On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Brian Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 09:55 -0800, Dave Costakos wrote: > > I had high hopes for this, but sadly it didn't work. All ethX > > interfaces still come up with a down link and all bond interfaces come > > up with a "00:00:00:00:00:00" HWaddr and no enslaved real interfaces. > > > > I guess I will submit something on rhn support. > > Dave, > Have you tried changing to mode to a number instead of using the name? > This KBase article (for RHEL 4) mentions the number is required: > > https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2007-0610.html > > The RHEL 5 Deployment Guide also mentions the number instead of the > name. > > /Brian/ > > > _______________________________________________ > rhelv5-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list > -- Dave Costakos mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
