Jay Vosburgh wrote:
---
If I am running 'rr' on 2 channels -- specifically for the purpose
of link speed aggregation (getting 1 20Gb channel out of 2 10Gb channels)
I'm not sure I see how miimon would provide benefit. -- if 1 link dies,
the other, being on the same card is likely to be dead
Jay Vosburgh wrote:
---
If I am running 'rr' on 2 channels -- specifically for the purpose
of link speed aggregation (getting 1 20Gb channel out of 2 10Gb channels)
I'm not sure I see how miimon would provide benefit. -- if 1 link dies,
the other, being on the same card is likely to be dead
Linda Walsh wrote:
>Sorry for the delay my distro (Suse) has made rebooting my system
>a chore (have to often boot from rescue to get it to come up because
>they put mount libs in /usr/lib expecting they will always boot
>from their ram disk -- preventing those of use who boot directly
>from
Sorry for the delay my distro (Suse) has made rebooting my system
a chore (have to often boot from rescue to get it to come up because
they put mount libs in /usr/lib expecting they will always boot
from their ram disk -- preventing those of use who boot directly
from disk from doing so
Sorry for the delay my distro (Suse) has made rebooting my system
a chore (have to often boot from rescue to get it to come up because
they put mount libs in /usr/lib expecting they will always boot
from their ram disk -- preventing those of use who boot directly
from disk from doing so
Linda Walsh l...@tlinx.org wrote:
Sorry for the delay my distro (Suse) has made rebooting my system
a chore (have to often boot from rescue to get it to come up because
they put mount libs in /usr/lib expecting they will always boot
from their ram disk -- preventing those of use who boot
Linda Walsh wrote:
>
>Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>>> Is this a known problem / bug, or should I file a bug on it?
>> Does this quick fix help?
>> ...
>> Thanks!
>>
>
> Applied:
>--- bond_main.c.orig 2012-09-30 16:47:46.0 -0700
>+++
Cong Wang wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Is this a known problem / bug, or should I file a bug on it?
Does this quick fix help?
...
Thanks!
Applied:
--- bond_main.c.orig 2012-09-30 16:47:46.0 -0700
+++ bond_main.c 2012-11-28 12:58:34.064931997
Cong Wang wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Linda Walsh l...@tlinx.org wrote:
Is this a known problem / bug, or should I file a bug on it?
Does this quick fix help?
...
Thanks!
Applied:
--- bond_main.c.orig 2012-09-30 16:47:46.0 -0700
+++ bond_main.c 2012-11-28
Linda Walsh l...@tlinx.org wrote:
Cong Wang wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Linda Walsh l...@tlinx.org wrote:
Is this a known problem / bug, or should I file a bug on it?
Does this quick fix help?
...
Thanks!
Applied:
--- bond_main.c.orig 2012-09-30 16:47:46.0
Cc netdev...
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>
>
> Is this a known problem / bug, or should I file a bug on it? It doesn't
> cause a complete failure, and it happens multiple times (~28 times
> in 2.5 days?... so maybe 10x/day?) about 8 start with ifup, and the rest
> start
Is this a known problem / bug, or should I file a bug on it?
It doesn't cause a complete failure, and it happens multiple times (~28
times
in 2.5 days?... so maybe 10x/day?) about 8 start with ifup, and the rest
start @ kworker -- both happen upon enabling the bonding driver
on a 10Gb dual
Is this a known problem / bug, or should I file a bug on it?
It doesn't cause a complete failure, and it happens multiple times (~28
times
in 2.5 days?... so maybe 10x/day?) about 8 start with ifup, and the rest
start @ kworker -- both happen upon enabling the bonding driver
on a 10Gb dual
Cc netdev...
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Linda Walsh l...@tlinx.org wrote:
Is this a known problem / bug, or should I file a bug on it? It doesn't
cause a complete failure, and it happens multiple times (~28 times
in 2.5 days?... so maybe 10x/day?) about 8 start with ifup, and the
14 matches
Mail list logo
