linux-kernel - Re: Slowness forming TIPC cluster with explicit node addresses

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1564347861.9737.25.camel@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
Date:   Sun, 28 Jul 2019 21:04:21 +0000
From:   Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
To:     "jon.maloy@...csson.com" <jon.maloy@...csson.com>,
        "tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
        <tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Slowness forming TIPC cluster with explicit node addresses

On Fri, 2019-07-26 at 13:31 +0000, Jon Maloy wrote:
> 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org <netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org>
> > On
> > Behalf Of Chris Packham
> > Sent: 25-Jul-19 19:37
> > To: tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net
> > Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > Subject: Slowness forming TIPC cluster with explicit node addresses
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I'm having problems forming a TIPC cluster between 2 nodes.
> > 
> > This is the basic steps I'm going through on each node.
> > 
> > modprobe tipc
> > ip link set eth2 up
> > tipc node set addr 1.1.5 # or 1.1.6
> > tipc bearer enable media eth dev eth0
> eth2, I assume...
> 

Yes sorry I keep switching between between Ethernet ports for testing
so I hand edited the email.

> > 
> > 
> > Then to confirm if the cluster is formed I use tipc link list
> > 
> > [root@...e-5 ~]# tipc link list
> > broadcast-link: up
> > ...
> > 
> > Looking at tcpdump the two nodes are sending packets
> > 
> > 22:30:05.782320 TIPC v2.0 1.1.5 > 0.0.0, headerlength 60 bytes,
> > MessageSize
> > 76 bytes, Neighbor Detection Protocol internal, messageType Link
> > request
> > 22:30:05.863555 TIPC v2.0 1.1.6 > 0.0.0, headerlength 60 bytes,
> > MessageSize
> > 76 bytes, Neighbor Detection Protocol internal, messageType Link
> > request
> > 
> > Eventually (after a few minutes) the link does come up
> > 
> > [root@...e-6 ~]# tipc link list
> > broadcast-link: up
> > 1001006:eth2-1001005:eth2: up
> > 
> > [root@...e-5 ~]# tipc link list
> > broadcast-link: up
> > 1001005:eth2-1001006:eth2: up
> > 
> > When I remove the "tipc node set addr" things seem to kick into
> > life straight
> > away
> > 
> > [root@...e-5 ~]# tipc link list
> > broadcast-link: up
> > 0050b61bd2aa:eth2-0050b61e6dfa:eth2: up
> > 
> > So there appears to be some difference in behaviour between having
> > an
> > explicit node address and using the default. Unfortunately our
> > application
> > relies on setting the node addresses.
> I do this many times a day, without any problems. If there would be
> any time difference, I would expect the 'auto configurable' version
> to be slower, because it involves a DAD step.
> Are you sure you don't have any other nodes running in your system?
> 
> ///jon
> 

Nope the two nodes are connected back to back. Does the number of
Ethernet interfaces make a difference? As you can see I've got 3 on
each node. One is completely disconnected, one is for booting over TFTP
 (only used by U-boot) and the other is the USB Ethernet I'm using for
testing.

> 
> > 
> > 
> > [root@...e-5 ~]# uname -a
> > Linux linuxbox 5.2.0-at1+ #8 SMP Thu Jul 25 23:22:41 UTC 2019 ppc
> > GNU/Linux
> > 
> > Any thoughts on the problem?