From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Chris Friesen" Subject: Re: [Bonding-devel] quick help with bonding? Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:42:54 -0600 Message-ID: <460C4EFE.6030505@nortel.com> References: <460BE5F0.7070606@nortel.com> <20070329181617.GA25770@gospo.rdu.redhat.com> <460C38EF.1080509@nortel.com> <4074.1175207458@death> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andy Gospodarek , netdev@vger.kernel.org, bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To: Jay Vosburgh Return-path: Received: from zcars04e.nortel.com ([47.129.242.56]:47960 "EHLO zcars04e.nortel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934363AbXC3AEW (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:04:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4074.1175207458@death> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 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. 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. Chris