----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <dan...@redhat.com>
> To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alo...@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Antoni Segura Puimedon" <asegu...@redhat.com>,
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 3:49:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [vdsm] Fwd: Bonding, bridges and ifcfg
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 08:22:49AM -0500, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <dan...@redhat.com>
> > > To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alo...@redhat.com>
> > > Cc: "Antoni Segura Puimedon" <asegu...@redhat.com>,
> > > email@example.com
> > > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 3:16:21 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [vdsm] Fwd: Bonding, bridges and ifcfg
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 08:07:38AM -0500, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Just to make sure... working in non-persistent mode will
> > > > eliminate
> > > > these kind of issues, right?
> > >
> > >
> > > No. It would eliminate the need to debug initscripts. But it
> > > would
> > > require
> > > vdsm developer of an intimate recognition of kernel quirks.
> > >
> > > We'd have fewer building blocks, and less of chance for
> > > incompatibility.
> > > But we would need to reimplement (some of) the logic within ifup
> > > script.
> > Sure you need to reimplement ifup and ifdown functionality as you
> > would not use these...
> > You will not have fewer building blocks if you will break the
> > fedora/redhat border, actually if you go non persistent you will
> > have fewer of these and be more portable as you have one kernel
> > (linux) to support.
> > vdsm developer [should] already require intimate recognition of the
> > kernel, see bellow one example. It is just that even if one has
> > intimate recognition of the kernel, working via primitive tools
> > like rhel/fedora network-script only make it harder to produce the
> > desired outcome, while having full control over the process and
> > the result.
> No doubt there are plenty of benefits of having less moving parts.
> you seem to ignore the human price of dealing with ioctls directly
> reinventing the nth management wrappers thereof.
You can use this as you please, via brctl, iproute2 etc... or via any other
When I write non-persistent I don't imply the method.
> Regarding the problem at hand: I did not grasp it yet, but I bet that
> is either a bug in the sequence that we use ifup/ifdown, or a bug in
> ifup itself. I'd like to understand how the bug is tickled, and how
> can be fixed.
vdsm-devel mailing list