On Thursday, 19 October 2006 21:04, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
It would seem to me that extending an existing mode would be more
desirable than adding yet another mode to worry about. I don't even
like the fact that there are as many as there are, but I understand why
they are there.
Ack. I
Dawid Ciezarkiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2006 21:04, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
It would seem to me that extending an existing mode would be more
desirable than adding yet another mode to worry about. I don't even
like the fact that there are as many as there are, but
On Friday, 20 October 2006 21:53, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
Dawid Ciezarkiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2006 21:04, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
It would seem to me that extending an existing mode would be more
desirable than adding yet another mode to worry about. I don't
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 10:52:00PM +0200, Dawid Ciezarkiewicz wrote:
Oh. I'm quite puzzled here. What is current policy? I'd like sysfs interfaces
better than ioctl - they are much cleaner etc. - but I thought ioctl will be
better here because current bonding control uses ioctl and
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 10:16:21AM +0200, Dawid Ciezarkiewicz wrote:
In fact - as default weight is being set to 1, without changing it wrr
bonding
mode works like plain round-robin one. But it have little more overhead
(recharging tokens), and code is a bit more complicated. I was not
On Monday, 16 October 2006 23:30, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:07:57PM +0200, Dawid Ciezarkiewicz wrote:
Before getting into the technical bits of the patch, what's the
reason for wanting to do this, and why is this rather complex manual
weight assignment
This patch is little thinner then the previous one.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Monday, 16 October 2006 20:21, Dawid Ciezarkiewicz wrote:
This patch is little thinner then the previous one.
I'm sorry for that. I've just ... nevermind. Here goes the patch.
Should I post patch for ifenslave here, too?
diff -Nur linux-2.6.17.orig/Documentation/networking/bonding.txt
Dawid Ciezarkiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
+ weighted-rr or 7
+
+ Weighted round-robin bonding. In this mode bonding
+ interface will use weights assigned to it's slaves.
+
+ Each slave can have weight assigned via ioctl (ifenslave).
+
On Monday, 16 October 2006 20:50, you wrote:
Dawid Ciezarkiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
+weighted-rr or 7
+
+Weighted round-robin bonding. In this mode bonding
+interface will use weights assigned to it's slaves.
+
+Each slave can have
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:07:57PM +0200, Dawid Ciezarkiewicz wrote:
Before getting into the technical bits of the patch, what's the
reason for wanting to do this, and why is this rather complex manual
weight assignment better than an automatic system based on, e.g., link
speed of
11 matches
Mail list logo