From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
From: Pavel Fedin
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4 for 2.3] vhost-user live migration support
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:30:54 +0300
Message-ID: <00c401d13641$5e53cf20$1afb6d60$@samsung.com>
References: <000001d133ed$b2446eb0$16cd4c10$@samsung.com>
<20151211094934.GX29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
<001c01d133fd$d3a7d870$7af78950$@samsung.com>
<20151214035842.GB18437@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: 'Peter Xu' , yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com
Return-path:
Received: from mailout2.w1.samsung.com (mailout2.w1.samsung.com
[210.118.77.12]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39554567C
for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:30:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: from eucpsbgm1.samsung.com (unknown [203.254.199.244])
by mailout2.w1.samsung.com
(Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.31.0 64bit (built May 5 2014))
with ESMTP id <0NZC004AD7JJGY30@mailout2.w1.samsung.com> for dev@dpdk.org;
Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:30:55 +0000 (GMT)
In-reply-to: <20151214035842.GB18437@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
Content-language: ru
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev"
Hello!
> When doing the ping, was it from the guest (to another host) or to
> the guest (from another host)?
>=20
> In any case, I still could not understand why the ping loss happened
> in this test.
>=20
> If ping from guest, no ARP refresh is required at all?
ping from guest to host.
Ok, my setup was:
Host<------->openVSwitch<----------->guest
LOCAL vhostuser
So, in order to migrate the guest, i simply replicated this setup on =
both hosts, with the same IPs on host side. And on both hosts i set up =
the following ruleset for openvswitch:
ovs-ofctl add-flow ovs-br0 in_port=3D1,actions=3Doutput:LOCAL
ovs-ofctl add-flow ovs-br0 in_port=3DLOCAL,actions=3Doutput:1
And on the second host, for some reason, vhostuser port got no 2 in the =
database instead of 1. Probably because first i added wrong port, then =
added correct one, then removed the wrong one. So, as i wrote before - =
please don't worry, the patch works fine, it was totally my lame fault.
Kind regards,
Pavel Fedin
Expert Engineer
Samsung Electronics Research center Russia