Done.
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 12:16:34PM +, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> Thanks, can you merge it to 1.4 branch please? We plan to release
> this in an XS 6.1 hotfix sometime.
>
> Zoli
>
> On 07/01/13 23:16, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 10:47:51PM +, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> >>The old
Thanks, can you merge it to 1.4 branch please? We plan to release this
in an XS 6.1 hotfix sometime.
Zoli
On 07/01/13 23:16, Ben Pfaff wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 10:47:51PM +, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
The old algorithm tries to converge to 0, despite it would mean a very
unbalanced situatio
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 10:47:51PM +, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> The old algorithm tries to converge to 0, despite it would mean a very
> unbalanced situation. We're aiming for an ideal ratio of 1, meaning both
> the 'from' and 'to' slave have the same load. Therefore, we only move an
> entry if it
The old algorithm tries to converge to 0, despite it would mean a very
unbalanced situation. We're aiming for an ideal ratio of 1, meaning both
the 'from' and 'to' slave have the same load. Therefore, we only move an
entry if it decreases the load on from, and brings us closer to equal
traffic loa
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 10:23:25PM +, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> On 07/01/13 22:12, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> >This seems fine to me. My only comment is that we should probably add a
> >bit more explanation. It took me 20 minutes just to figure out what
> >this code is intended to do.
> >
> > > +
On 07/01/13 22:12, Ethan Jackson wrote:
This seems fine to me. My only comment is that we should probably add a
bit more explanation. It took me 20 minutes just to figure out what
this code is intended to do.
> +/* Ideal ratio is 1, move it if the new ratio is
closer to it
This seems fine to me. My only comment is that we should probably add a
bit more explanation. It took me 20 minutes just to figure out what this
code is intended to do.
> +/* Ideal ratio is 1, move it if the new ratio is closer to
> it. */
>
Perhaps we could expand this comment a b
OK, thanks. I'd still like some comments from Ethan or another person
who understands the bonding code.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 10:03:00PM +, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> Oops, I've missed the "#include " from this second version
> of the patch. To avoid warnings, I will resend it.
>
> Zoli
>
> On
The old algorithm tries to converge to 0, despite it would mean a very
unbalanced situation. 1 is a more desirable goal.
Signed-off-by: Zoltan Kiss
---
lib/bond.c | 6 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/bond.c b/lib/bond.c
index 2c59f9d..2f8afdd 100644
--- a
Oops, I've missed the "#include " from this second version of
the patch. To avoid warnings, I will resend it.
Zoli
On 07/01/13 20:27, Ben Pfaff wrote:
Ethan, do you have any thoughts about this patch? It seems
reasonable, but I'd like another set of eyes on it before I apply it.
On Sat, Jan
Ethan, do you have any thoughts about this patch? It seems
reasonable, but I'd like another set of eyes on it before I apply it.
On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 09:41:19PM +, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> The old algorithm tries to converge to 0, despite it would mean a very
> unbalanced situation. 1 is a mor
The old algorithm tries to converge to 0, despite it would mean a very
unbalanced situation. 1 is a more desirable goal.
Signed-off-by: Zoltan Kiss
---
lib/bond.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/bond.c b/lib/bond.c
index 2c59f9d..87962de 100644
--- a/
12 matches
Mail list logo
