John Ratliff wrote:
>
>> Do you really need STP? Do you really need STP on that group of
>> ports? Why not disable it completely.
> I'm not aware of any way to disable spanning tree on a per port basis,
> and no, I cannot disable it on the switch entirely.
Ah, Cisco.
> Do you really need STP? Do you really need STP on that group of ports?
> Why not disable it completely.
I'm not aware of any way to disable spanning tree on a per port basis, and
no, I cannot disable it on the switch entirely.
>
> I have the same, but the systemd.unit restarts conntrackd
John Ratliff wrote:
>
>> John Ratliff wrote:
>>> I have a 4 port LAGG (LACP / bond-mode 4) interface named bond0. It
>>> seems to take about 45 seconds after the links come up to negotiate
>>> with the switch.
>> This long delay is not normal.
> John Ratliff wrote:
>
>> I have a 4 port LAGG (LACP / bond-mode 4) interface named bond0. It
>> seems
>> to take about 45 seconds after the links come up to negotiate with the
>> switch.
>
> This long delay is not normal. For me LACP-based bonds never take longer
>
John Ratliff wrote:
> I have a 4 port LAGG (LACP / bond-mode 4) interface named bond0. It seems
> to take about 45 seconds after the links come up to negotiate with the
> switch.
This long delay is not normal. For me LACP-based bonds never take longer
than 1 or at most
I need two services to wait until the network is fully up before I start
them. In Jessie, I made an rc.local script that pinged google 20 times
until it got a response. After that, it started the services. This seemed
to work great. I upgraded one of the systems to stretch, and the script
stopped
6 matches
Mail list logo