On 15/09/15 01:01, Digimer wrote:
> On 14/09/15 10:46 AM, Noel Kuntze wrote:
>>
>> Hello Christine,
>>
>> I googled a bit and some doc[1] says that TC_PRIO_INTERACTIVE maps to value
>> 6, whatever that is.
>> Assuming that value of 6 is the same as the "priority value", Corosync
>> traffic
On 15/09/15 12:10 PM, Noel Kuntze wrote:
>
> Hello Digimer,
>
>> So what's the final verdict on this? I followed your back and forth, and
>> it sounds like corosync uses 0, so nothing else is to be done?
>
> Missing prioritization itself cannot be the cause of the problem.
> Either some other
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello Chrstine,
> There are other networking scheduling algorithms, I think. Though I
> haven't looked at them in detail for years now. Maybe we should
> investigate and see if there is one that might be more appropriate?
I'd propose recreating
On 15/09/15 03:20 AM, Jan Friesse wrote:
> Digimer napsal(a):
>> On 14/09/15 04:20 AM, Jan Friesse wrote:
>>> Digimer napsal(a):
Hi all,
Starting a new thread from the "Clustered LVM with iptables issue"
thread...
I've decided to review how I do networking
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello Christine,
> I think it's worth mentioning here that corosync already sets its
> packets to TC_INTERACTIVE (which DLM does not), so they should not need
> too much messing around with in iptables/qdisc
If that is the case, then why do the
On 14/09/15 12:45, Noel Kuntze wrote:
>
> Hello Christine,
>
>> I think it's worth mentioning here that corosync already sets its
>> packets to TC_INTERACTIVE (which DLM does not), so they should not need
>> too much messing around with in iptables/qdisc
>
> If that is the case, then why do the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello Christine,
I googled a bit and some doc[1] says that TC_PRIO_INTERACTIVE maps to value 6,
whatever that is.
Assuming that value of 6 is the same as the "priority value", Corosync traffic
should go into band 0, because
TOS values of 0x10
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello Christine,
Do you have a pointer for me where to look in the source?
Searching for TC_INTERACTIVE in the Corosync sources on Github yielded no
results.
How the scheduler handles the packets depends on the settings and type of it,
so yes,
On 14/09/15 10:46 AM, Noel Kuntze wrote:
>
> Hello Christine,
>
> I googled a bit and some doc[1] says that TC_PRIO_INTERACTIVE maps to value
> 6, whatever that is.
> Assuming that value of 6 is the same as the "priority value", Corosync
> traffic should go into band 0, because
> TOS values of
On 14/09/15 04:20 AM, Jan Friesse wrote:
> Digimer napsal(a):
>> Hi all,
>>
>>Starting a new thread from the "Clustered LVM with iptables issue"
>> thread...
>>
>>I've decided to review how I do networking entirely in my cluster. I
>> make zero claims to being great at networks, so I would
Digimer napsal(a):
Hi all,
Starting a new thread from the "Clustered LVM with iptables issue"
thread...
I've decided to review how I do networking entirely in my cluster. I
make zero claims to being great at networks, so I would love some feedback.
I've got three active/passive
11 matches
Mail list logo