netdev - Re: [Bonding-devel] [PATCH net-next-2.6] bonding: introduce primary

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: <20090814105938.GE3457@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:59:39 +0200
From:	Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
To:	Nicolas de Pesloüan <nicolas.2p.debian@...e.fr>
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

Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 09:41:02PM CEST, nicolas.2p.debian@...e.fr wrote:
> Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> In some cases there is not desirable to switch back to primary interface when
>> it's link recovers and rather stay wiith currently active one. We need to avoid
>> packetloss as much as we can in some cases. This is solved by introducing
>> primary_lazy option. Note that enslaved primary slave is set as current
>> active no matter what.
>
> May I suggest that instead of creating a new option to better define how
> the "primary" option is expected to behave for active-backup mode, we  
> try the "weight" slave  option I proposed in the thread "alternative to  
> primary" earlier this year ?
>
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=49D5357E.4020201%40free.fr&forum_name=bonding-devel

This link does not work for me :(

>
> Giving the same "weight" to two different slaves means "chose at random
> on startup and keep the active one until it fails". And if the "at
> random" behavior is not appropriate, one can force the active slave
> using what Jay suggested  (/sys/class/net/bond0/bonding/active).
>
> The proposed "weight" slave's option is able to prevent the slaves from
> flip-flopping, by stating the fact that two slaves share the same  
> "primary" level, and may provide several other enhancements as described  
> in the thread.
>

Although I cannot reach the thread, this looks interesting. But I'm not sure it
has real benefits over primary_lazy option (and it doesn't solve initial curr
active slave setup)

Jirka

> Hence, it is a more general configuration interface than what you  
> proposed. I must admit that despite the fact that I suggested this in  
> april, I didn't posted any patch for it until now. Unfortunately,  
> I'didn't had time for it and probably not the proper skills anyway :-).
>
> 	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