Scott Adair wrote: > Yes, all of these vnets are on the same subnet. > within a guest are all 3 vnets in the same subnet? from your previous emails I thought all 3 vnets are plumbed and in use, in each guest; but looks like you are saying only 1 is plumbed? > The issue occurs from just general use, but seems to be related to > high network utilization (we use NFS for all the users home > directories). > > 6603974 - Interesting, although we only have 3 vnet (only 1 plumbed) > on each domain, and only two domains per vsw. Also we are not using > DHCP. We loose connectivity to all external systems, both on the same > subnet and across our router.' > if you are losing connection to hosts on the same subnet, then it may not be that problem. > Would there be any harm is setting ip_ire_min_bucket_cnt and > ip_ire_max_bucket_cnt? Would that need to be set in each Domain or > just the Primary? > there shouldn't be any harm; set it in /etc/system on the domain(not primary) and remove after verifying. -Harsha > Scott > > On 19-Jun-08, at 3:53 PM, Sriharsha.Basavapatna at Sun.COM wrote: > > >> Scott Adair wrote: >> >>> So we have some mixed results. This seems to have reduced the >>> issue, but it has not solved it. Actually, I think it has masked it >>> a bit since it seems to have just increased a timeout in the vsw >>> code (although I'm not a programmer, so I don't know for sure). >>> >>> >> That work around(6675887) is needed only if you are using an aggr >> device for vsw; I'm not sure how that can change the behavior you >> are seeing. >> >>> Something else that I've noticed. Let's say that we have LD1 and >>> LD2 on VSW0. If LD1 has the network problem I can still ping LD2. >>> So I'm starting to think that the problem is not related to the vsw >>> but maybe is something in the vnet driver inside the domain? This >>> would explain why I loose all network connectivity, across all the >>> vsw's the ldom is connected to, at the same time. >>> >>> >> are these vnets in the same subnet on each guest? if yes and if the >> problem shows only when you try to ping off-link destinations (going >> thru default router), then you may be running into 6603974. >> >> -Harsha >> >>> -- >>> This message was posted from opensolaris.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ldoms-discuss mailing list >>> ldoms-discuss at opensolaris.org >>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ldoms-discuss >>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ > ldoms-discuss mailing list > ldoms-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ldoms-discuss >
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ldoms-discuss/attachments/20080619/1b696dee/attachment.html>
