Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
On 10/06/2015 09:53 PM, Jarod Wilson wrote:
From: Uwe Koziolek
With some very finicky switch hardware, active backup bonding can get into
a situation where we play ping-pong between interfaces, trying to get one
to come up as the active slave. There seems to be an iss
Jay Vosburgh wrote:
Jarod Wilson wrote:
Jarod Wilson wrote:
...
As Andy already stated I'm not a fan of such workarounds either but it's
necessary sometimes so if this is going to be actually considered then a
few things need to be fixed. Please make this a proper bonding option
which can be
Jarod Wilson wrote:
>Jarod Wilson wrote:
>...
>> As Andy already stated I'm not a fan of such workarounds either but it's
>> necessary sometimes so if this is going to be actually considered then a
>> few things need to be fixed. Please make this a proper bonding option
>> which can be changed at
On 10/09/2015 04:36 PM, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Jarod Wilson wrote:
> ...
>> As Andy already stated I'm not a fan of such workarounds either but it's
>> necessary sometimes so if this is going to be actually considered then a
>> few things need to be fixed. Please make this a proper bonding option
>>
Jarod Wilson wrote:
...
As Andy already stated I'm not a fan of such workarounds either but it's
necessary sometimes so if this is going to be actually considered then a
few things need to be fixed. Please make this a proper bonding option
which can be changed at runtime and not only via a module
Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
On 10/06/2015 09:53 PM, Jarod Wilson wrote:
From: Uwe Koziolek
With some very finicky switch hardware, active backup bonding can get into
a situation where we play ping-pong between interfaces, trying to get one
to come up as the active slave. There seems to be an iss
On 10/06/2015 09:53 PM, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> From: Uwe Koziolek
>
> With some very finicky switch hardware, active backup bonding can get into
> a situation where we play ping-pong between interfaces, trying to get one
> to come up as the active slave. There seems to be an issue with the
> switc
Jarod Wilson wrote:
From: Uwe Koziolek
With some very finicky switch hardware, active backup bonding can get into
a situation where we play ping-pong between interfaces, trying to get one
to come up as the active slave. There seems to be an issue with the
switch's arp replies either taking too l
From: Uwe Koziolek
With some very finicky switch hardware, active backup bonding can get into
a situation where we play ping-pong between interfaces, trying to get one
to come up as the active slave. There seems to be an issue with the
switch's arp replies either taking too long, or simply gettin
