The initial bond distribution indeed improved significantly with
e58f91a1. Thanks for solving one of the mysteries.
I have already pushed Simon's patch assuming test failure was still
observed with this patch. Using 256 is not a bad idea at any rate --
there is no particular good reason to pick 9
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 06:46:08PM -0700, Andy Zhou wrote:
> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 6:23 PM, YAMAMOTO Takashi
> wrote:
> >> It is my observation that when sending 91 packets to a mode=balance
> >> bond interface with three underlying ports in some cases not all ports
> >> receive at least 7 packe
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 6:23 PM, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> It is my observation that when sending 91 packets to a mode=balance
>> bond interface with three underlying ports in some cases not all ports
>> receive at least 7 packets. This causes the test to fail.
>
> was it with or without commit e5
> It is my observation that when sending 91 packets to a mode=balance
> bond interface with three underlying ports in some cases not all ports
> receive at least 7 packets. This causes the test to fail.
was it with or without commit e58f91a1?
YAMAMOTO Takashi
>
> It may be that failure indicate
Thanks for the patch. I will apply this in a few minutes.
I also find the hash distribution trouble some, but was not able to
pin it down. I will look at this more.
___
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 05:40:17PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> It is my observation that when sending 91 packets to a mode=balance
> bond interface with three underlying ports in some cases not all ports
> receive at least 7 packets. This causes the test to fail.
>
> It may be that failure indica
It is my observation that when sending 91 packets to a mode=balance
bond interface with three underlying ports in some cases not all ports
receive at least 7 packets. This causes the test to fail.
It may be that failure indicates that the bonding code
needs improvement. But it seems to me that its
