From: "Nicolas de Pesloüan" <nicolas.2p.debian@free.fr>
To: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@redhat.com>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, fubar@us.ibm.com,
bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bonding-devel] [PATCH net-next-2.6] bonding: introduce primary_lazy option
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:41:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A846C4E.8030509@free.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090813150513.GB10449@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com>
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
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.
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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-13 19:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-13 15:05 [PATCH net-next-2.6] bonding: introduce primary_lazy option Jiri Pirko
2009-08-13 15:44 ` Jay Vosburgh
2009-08-14 10:52 ` Jiri Pirko
2009-08-13 19:41 ` Nicolas de Pesloüan [this message]
2009-08-14 10:59 ` [Bonding-devel] " Jiri Pirko
2009-08-14 16:27 ` Nicolas de Pesloüan
2009-08-17 11:49 ` Jiri Pirko
2009-08-17 20:55 ` Nicolas de Pesloüan
2009-08-18 12:45 ` Jiri Pirko
2009-08-20 12:40 ` Nicolas de Pesloüan
2009-08-24 11:16 ` Jiri Pirko
2009-08-24 15:07 ` Nicolas de Pesloüan
2009-08-24 15:20 ` Jiri Pirko
2009-08-24 17:35 ` Jay Vosburgh
2009-08-25 6:43 ` Jiri Pirko
2009-08-25 17:31 ` Nicolas de Pesloüan
2009-08-25 18:41 ` Jay Vosburgh
2009-08-25 20:33 ` Nicolas de Pesloüan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4A846C4E.8030509@free.fr \
--to=nicolas.2p.debian@free.fr \
--cc=bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=fubar@us.ibm.com \
--cc=jpirko@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).