| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:07:18 +0200 From: Nicolas de Pesloüan <nicolas.2p.debian@...e.fr> To: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com> CC: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, fubar@...ibm.com, bonding-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bonding-devel] [PATCH net-next-2.6] bonding: introduce primary_lazy option Jiri Pirko wrote: > Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 02:40:07PM CEST, nicolas.2p.debian@...e.fr wrote: [--cut--] >> I suggest that instead of having a per bond "primary_lazy" option, we >> define a per slave option, describing whether this particular slave is >> "sticky when active" or not. >> >> The above setup would become : >> >> echo 1 > /sys/class/net/eth0/bonding/sticky_active >> echo 1 > /sys/class/net/eth1/bonding/sticky_active >> echo 0 > /sys/class/net/eth2/bonding/sticky_active >> echo eth0 > /sys/class/net/bond0/bonding/primary >> >> Or may be better, keeping the "weight" idea in mind, a per slave option >> "active_weight" that gives the weight of the slave, *when active*. >> >> The effective weight of a slave would become : >> >> effective_slave = >> (is_active ? user_supplied_active_weight ? user_supplied_weight) * >> natural_weight >> >> # Prefer eth0, then one of eth1 or eth2, then eth3. >> echo 1000 > /sys/class/net/eth0/bonding/weight >> echo 999 > /sys/class/net/eth1/bonding/weight >> echo 999 > /sys/class/net/eth2/bonding/weight >> echo 10 > /sys/class/net/eth3/bonding/weight >> >> # Do not switch back to primary eth0 if eth1 or eth2 is active. >> echo 1000 > /sys/class/net/eth1/bonding/active_weight >> echo 1000 > /sys/class/net/eth2/bonding/active_weight >> >> Every time one changes the user_supplied_weight, then >> user_supplied_active_weight must be reset to the same value. This way, >> if no special setup is done on active_weight, then the current normal >> behavior is achieved. > > I must say I like this approach. But it would be not trivial to implement this. > Therefore I would stick with your propose of extending primary lazy to 3 values > until the weight option is implemented. It sounds good for me. Later, if I eventually implement the weight option, it shouldn't be that hard to convert internally the primary_lazy setup to active_weight, the same way we plan to convert internally primary setup to weight setup. primary and primary_lazy are convenient for simple - two slaves only - configurations. weight and active_weight are for more advanced configurations. Keeping both configuration interface does sound user friendly. > I'm going to implement your propose below. By the way, even if I'm not a native English speaker, I think that primary_lazy option should be named lazy_primary instead. Nicolas. >> If none of those options seem acceptable to you, I suggest a third one: >> >> You keep primary_lazy, but with the following values : >> >> # Switch back to primary slaves when it comes back. >> echo 0 > /sys/class/net/bond0/bonding/primary_lazy >> >> # Switch back to primary when it comes back, only if the speed of the >> # primary slave is higher than the speed of the current active slave. >> echo 1 > /sys/class/net/bond0/bonding/primary_lazy >> >> # Stick to the current active slave when the primary slave comes back, >> # even if the primary slave speed is higher than the speed of the >> # current active slave. >> echo 2 > /sys/class/net/bond0/bonding/primary_lazy >> >> You can consider the value as being the level of laziness of the primary. >> >> Nicolas. >> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists