Actually, the original post without the "auto bond0" is from mar_rio.
I'm the second person reporting the bug. I assumed that you didn't put
"auto bond0" because we've been quoting the README as authoritative and
it doesn't have the auto for the bond. To reproduce the original bug I
simplified my interfaces file to (only IPs have been changed):
----------------------------------------------
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback
auto bond0
iface bond0 inet static
bond_slaves eth0 eth1
bond_mode active-backup
bond_primary eth1
bond_miimon 100
bond_updelay 2000
address 192.168.1.100
netmask 255.255.255.0
broadcast 192.168.1.255
----------------------------------------------
So, if I keep "auto bond0" and change my interfaces file to:
----------------------------------------------
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback
auto bond0
iface bond0 inet static
bond_slaves none
bond_mode active-backup
bond_primary eth0
bond_miimon 100
bond_updelay 2000
address 192.168.1.100
netmask 255.255.255.0
broadcast 192.168.1.255
auto eth0
iface eth0 inet manual
bond_master bond0
bond_mode active-backup
bond_primary eth0
bond_miimon 100
bond_updelay 2000
auto eth1
iface eth1 inet manual
bond_master bond0
bond_mode active-backup
bond_primary eth0
bond_miimon 100
bond_updelay 2000
----------------------------------------------
Then I still have no primary after a reboot. What I think is happening
is the following:
If the order that the interfaces come up is bond0, eth0, eth1 then the primary
will be set:
ifup bond0:
creates bond0 (from add_master());
no primary is set (from setup_master() with no slaves);
no slaves are added (from enslave_slaves() with bond_slaves =
none);
bond0 comes UP (but probably not LOWER_UP yet)
ifup eth0:
sees that bond0 is already created (from add_master());
should fail to set mode but continue anyway (from
setup_master() with bond0 already up);
no primary is set (from setup_master() with no slaves);
eth0 is added as slave (from enslave_slaves() with bond_slaves
= eth0);
eth0 comes UP and LOWER_UP which should cause bond0 to come
LOWER_UP;
ifup eth1:
sees that bond0 is already created (from add_master());
should fail to set mode but continue anyway (from
setup_master() with bond0 already up);
primary is set to eth0 (from setup_master() with eth0 as slave);
eth1 is added as slave (from enslave_slaves() with bond_slaves
= eth1);
eth1 comes UP and LOWER_UP;
If the order that the interfaces come up is bond0, eth1, eth0 then the primary
will not be set:
ifup bond0:
creates bond0 (from add_master());
no primary is set (from setup_master() with no slaves);
no slaves are added (from enslave_slaves() with bond_slaves =
none);
bond0 comes UP (but probably not LOWER_UP yet)
ifup eth1:
sees that bond0 is already created (from add_master());
should fail to set mode but continue anyway (from
setup_master() with bond0 already up);
no primary is set (from setup_master() with no slaves);
eth1 is added as slave (from enslave_slaves() with bond_slaves
= eth1);
eth1 comes UP and LOWER_UP which should cause bond0 to come
LOWER_UP;
ifup eth0:
sees that bond0 is already created (from add_master());
should fail to set mode but continue anyway (from
setup_master() with bond0 already up);
no primary is set (from setup_master() with only eth1 as slave);
eth0 is added as slave (from enslave_slaves() with bond_slaves
= eth0);
eth0 comes UP and LOWER_UP;
I would guess that moving the following code from setup_master() over to the
end of enslave_slaves() will fix the problem:
--------------------------------------------
# The first slave in bond-primary found in current slaves becomes the
primary.
# If no slave in bond-primary is found, then primary does not change.
for slave in $IF_BOND_PRIMARY ; do
if grep -sq "\\<$slave\\>"
"/sys/class/net/$BOND_MASTER/bonding/slaves" ; then
sysfs "$slave" primary
break
fi
done
--------------------------------------------
Note: If that does fix the problem then moving the
"IF_BOND_ACTIVE_SLAVE" section is probably also a good idea but not
related specifically to this "bond_primary" bug report.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/823366
Title:
bond_primary is ignored in /etc/network/interfaces
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ifenslave-2.6/+bug/823366/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
