Ragnar Lonn wrote:
As you mention, the usual answer is to get the syslog on each system to
forward everything to one logging system.
you could add a second interface to each vimage just for logging to
keep it separate from the testing..
Hmm, I have avoided this because I didn't want to do a lot of interface
housekeeping. Actually, this leads to another question of mine :-)
Network interfaces can't be removed under FreeBSD, something that
causes me a lot of trouble as I create many interfaces and move them
to many
vimages. Then I remove vimages in order to create new ones
(reconfigure the
client simulation setup) and the network interfaces get dumped into
the default
vimage, from where I have to collect them. I cant just create new
interfaces
when the setup is to be reconfigured because I can't delete the old
interfaces.
interface removal in 4.x was nt quite "finished"
there are several viewpoints from which th einterface is not quite removed.
(as you have found)
I can not remember the details as It all changed in 5.x
(though vimage doesn't work in 5.x )
Or can I?
Example:
ngctl mkpeer . eiface hook ether
...results in [EMAIL PROTECTED] being created. Then I do:
ngctl shutdown ngeth0:
..and the interface is gone. Seems that doing a shutdown actually
causes the
interface to get removed, right? But then I do something like this:
# create [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ngctl mkpeer . eiface hook ether
# create [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ngctl mkpeer . eiface hook ether
# move ngeth1
vimage -i myvimage ngeth1
....the interface is moved to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Then I do:
ngctl shutdown ngeth0:
vimage myvimage
vimage -i - ngeth0
...and the interface is moved back to the deafult vimage, BUT it is
named [EMAIL PROTECTED] Even though [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been shutdown
and is nowhere to be seen. This makes me suspect that interfaces aren't
properly removed when I issue a shutdown even though they might seem to
be gone, and I have therefore decided to reuse interfaces, rather than
remove them.
it's possible that the unit number is stored in the ng_ether driver and
is therefore
not split for the vimages. so if the code gets a new unit number for
the new instance before
removing the old instance, the unit number will be 1 and not 0..
just a quess.
Is this assumption correct? Or is it just a naming issue that won't
result
in some resource exhaustion eventually if I continue creating, moving
and removing interfaces?
Being able to remove interfaces would be really great. Then I could
create extra logging interfaces in each vimage and not worry about
the cleanup nightmare afterwards. Right now, I have a lot of script
code just to find and reuse old ngeth interfaces sitting around in the
default vimage and if I'm to have two types of those interfaces
(one for logging, that has one underlying netgraph tree structure, and
one for test traffic, using another netgraph tree structure) it would
likely be at least twice as much trouble. That's why I was looking for
some other way of communicating between different vimages.
"use the source Luke"
I know it seems like a lot but the netgraph code and the networking
interface code are
relatively simple..
Regards,
/Ragnar
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
