From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Gospodarek Subject: Re: [Bonding-devel] quick help with bonding? Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:36:31 -0400 Message-ID: <20070330003630.GA18319@gospo.rdu.redhat.com> References: <460BE5F0.7070606@nortel.com> <20070329181617.GA25770@gospo.rdu.redhat.com> <460C38EF.1080509@nortel.com> <4074.1175207458@death> <460C4EFE.6030505@nortel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jay Vosburgh , netdev@vger.kernel.org, bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To: Chris Friesen Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:34367 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934380AbXC3Agh (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:36:37 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <460C4EFE.6030505@nortel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 05:42:54PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: > Jay Vosburgh wrote: > > > 2.6.10 is pretty old, and there have been a number of fixes to > > the bonding ARP monitor since then, so it may be that it is simply > > misbehaving (presuming that you're running the 2.6.10 bonding driver). > > Are you in a position to test against a more recent kernel (and/or > > bonding driver)? Does the miimon misbehave in a similar fashion? > > Testing a more recent kernel is problematic. A new bonding driver could > be possible, assuming the code hasn't changed too much. If you are looking for a decent source for patches you could consider downloading the latest source-rpm from RHEL4/CentOS4. The bonding driver in those releases have been updated to much later code and I can tell you from personal experience they work pretty well. You may need to do some backporting to get the latest arp-monitoring features, but let me know if you need a hand with that, I might have some laying around. ;) > I just did another experiment. Normally we boot via eth4 (which then > becomes part of the bond with eth5 at init time). If I boot via eth6 > instead, it appears as though the problem doesn't show up. Does eth6 use the same hardware/driver as eth4/5? (Sorry if I missed that in the thread, but didn't see if you indicated that it did.)