Port versus Interface is also covered here
http://openvswitch.org/ovs-vswitchd.conf.db.5.pdf under the section for
Port table it says a port is:
"A port within a Bridge. Most commonly, a port has exactly one
'interface', pointed to by its interfaces column. Such a port logically
corresponds to a
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:23:18AM +, Sivakami S wrote:
> What is the difference between adding an interface and adding a port
> to the Open VSwitch?
The ovs-dpctl manpage says:
If ovs-vswitchd(8) is in use, use ovs-vsctl(8) instead of ovs-dpctl.
___
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Sivakami S wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What is the difference between adding an interface and adding a port to the
> Open VSwitch?
> The commands I used are as follows,
>
> For adding a port,
> ovs-vsctl add-port br0 eth0
>
> For adding an interface,
> ovs-dpctl add-if br0 et
Hi,
What is the difference between adding an interface and adding a port to the
Open VSwitch?
The commands I used are as follows,
For adding a port,
ovs-vsctl add-port br0 eth0
For adding an interface,
ovs-dpctl add-if br0 eth0
Regards,
S.Sivakami.
__
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:36 PM, McGarvey, Kevin wrote:
>
> On 1/22/14 6:30 PM, "Gurucharan Shetty" wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Where can I find that? I installed OVS from an rpm. I ran rpm -qlp on
>>> the package and I didn't see the kernel module. Do I need to build it?
>>
>>Where did you get your RPMS
On 1/22/14 6:30 PM, "Gurucharan Shetty" wrote:
>>
>> Where can I find that? I installed OVS from an rpm. I ran rpm -qlp on
>> the package and I didn't see the kernel module. Do I need to build it?
>
>Where did you get your RPMS from? Did you build it?
>
>RHEL comes with a default OVS kernel m
>
> Where can I find that? I installed OVS from an rpm. I ran rpm -qlp on
> the package and I didn't see the kernel module. Do I need to build it?
Where did you get your RPMS from? Did you build it?
RHEL comes with a default OVS kernel module. I think you are using it.
Each OVS version comes
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:54:25PM +, McGarvey, Kevin wrote:
>
>
> On 1/22/14 4:42 PM, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:40:11PM +, McGarvey, Kevin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/22/14 4:10 PM, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:04:48PM +, McGa
On 1/22/14 4:42 PM, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:40:11PM +, McGarvey, Kevin wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/22/14 4:10 PM, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:04:48PM +, McGarvey, Kevin wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 1/22/14 3:23 PM, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
>> >>
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:40:11PM +, McGarvey, Kevin wrote:
>
>
> On 1/22/14 4:10 PM, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:04:48PM +, McGarvey, Kevin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/22/14 3:23 PM, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 08:17:05PM +, McGa
On 1/22/14 4:10 PM, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:04:48PM +, McGarvey, Kevin wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/22/14 3:23 PM, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 08:17:05PM +, McGarvey, Kevin wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 1/22/14 12:44 PM, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
>> >>
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:04:48PM +, McGarvey, Kevin wrote:
>
>
> On 1/22/14 3:23 PM, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 08:17:05PM +, McGarvey, Kevin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/22/14 12:44 PM, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:39:14AM -0800, Ben
On 1/22/14 3:23 PM, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 08:17:05PM +, McGarvey, Kevin wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/22/14 12:44 PM, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:39:14AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 05:35:40PM +, McGarvey, Kevin wrote:
I didn't push too hard on 1.9.3 to be honest, but the initial instance
deployment worked and that was what had crashed on me consistently
previously so I kind of just called it good and then decided to go ahead
and move up to 2.0 since you said it had a larger rewrite of the tunneling
code. Probabl
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 08:17:05PM +, McGarvey, Kevin wrote:
>
>
> On 1/22/14 12:44 PM, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:39:14AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 05:35:40PM +, McGarvey, Kevin wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 1/21/14 6:17 PM, "Ben Pf
On 1/22/14 12:44 PM, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:39:14AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 05:35:40PM +, McGarvey, Kevin wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 1/21/14 6:17 PM, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
>> > >I'd expect a dramatic drop in CPU consumption in that case. The
Hmm, that's interesting. I'm glad that 1.9.3 fixed the problem
although I didn't see any changes from 1.9 that I would expect to
resolve this. However, 2.0 has a much simpler tunneling stack so I
would expect that to be more reliable.
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Travis Wilson
wrote:
> Good
Good day again Jesse.
I wanted to provide you and the group with an update on our issue. We tried
several times to get a kdump out of the system but never were able to
successfully get that to work. Based on that we decided to take a look at
the newer versions of Open vSwitch as you had mentioned
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:39:14AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 05:35:40PM +, McGarvey, Kevin wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 1/21/14 6:17 PM, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
> > >I'd expect a dramatic drop in CPU consumption in that case. There are
> > >a few special cases where the upgrade
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 05:35:40PM +, McGarvey, Kevin wrote:
>
>
> On 1/21/14 6:17 PM, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
> >I'd expect a dramatic drop in CPU consumption in that case. There are
> >a few special cases where the upgrade wouldn't help. One is if
> >in-band control is in use, another is if N
On 1/21/14 6:17 PM, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
>Please don't drop the mailing list.
My apologies for dropping the mailing list.
>
>I'd expect a dramatic drop in CPU consumption in that case. There are
>a few special cases where the upgrade wouldn't help. One is if
>in-band control is in use, anothe
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:13 AM, mad Engineer wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Can somebody please explain this.
>
>
> system@xapi3:
>
> lookups: hit:379708115 missed:2695833801 lost:226246534
>
> flows: 2414
>
> port 0: xapi3 (internal)
>
> port 1: eth1
>
> port 2: eth0
>
> port 4: xapi4 (internal)
>
> p
< I accidentally sent this to the dev mailing list before >
Hey guys,
I'm noticing an interesting phenomena that I can't explain.
I have a flow in openvswitch that looks like that:
ovs-ofctl add-flow sw0
"table=0,priority=100,in_port=1,ip,actions=resubmit(,1),resubmit(,2),resubmit(,3)"
if I sen
Hi All,
Can somebody please explain this.
system@xapi3:
lookups: hit:379708115 missed:2695833801 lost:226246534
flows: 2414
port 0: xapi3 (internal)
port 1: eth1
port 2: eth0
port 4: xapi4 (internal)
port 15: vif13.0
port 18: vif14.0
this is from an old OVS version and i can see improv
24 matches
Mail list logo
