On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Miroslav Lichvar
wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 02:11:58PM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> > On auto-deployed config changes of virt systems (with plenty of switch
> > interfaces for example) I've seen three digits per second (rare, but
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 02:11:58PM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> On auto-deployed config changes of virt systems (with plenty of switch
> interfaces for example) I've seen three digits per second (rare, but
> existing).
And each one runs all NM dispatcher scripts? I suspect the bottleneck
is
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Miroslav Lichvar
wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 04:44:30PM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> > No I'm fine with a single command.
> > If it is low on cpu consumption and fast.
> > We have to consider that in some environments you might
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 11:54:49AM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > With just one command neither Stephens nor my suggestion make sense.
> > How about just "probe" then?
>
> I'm not sure. What exactly are we probing here? There are no packets
> exchanged. It's just a local check of the routing
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 04:44:30PM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> No I'm fine with a single command.
> If it is low on cpu consumption and fast.
> We have to consider that in some environments you might have plenty
> (really a lot) of changes ongoing.
> And you might get a notification for