Hmmm. Please correct me, if I'm wrong: As I understand it, you have a number of packets, that go to BOTH NICs. Depending, on which one is the active or the passive one, the sum of all dropped packets should be equal to the number of received packets (plusminus some drops for other reasons). So if one card drops 10% of the packets, the other should drop 90% of the packets. - This is not the case here.
Regards, Herbert -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: linux-ha-boun...@lists.linux-ha.org [mailto:linux-ha-boun...@lists.linux-ha.org] Im Auftrag von Lars Marowsky-Bree Gesendet: Freitag, 12. Juli 2013 11:09 An: General Linux-HA mailing list Betreff: Re: [Linux-HA] Antw: Re: beating a dead horse: cLVM, OCFS2 and TOTEM On 2013-07-12T11:05:32, Wengatz Herbert <herbert.weng...@baaderbank.de> wrote: > Seeing the high dropping quote... (just compare this to the other NIC) - have > you tried a new cable? Maybe it's a cheap hardware problem... The drop rate is normal. A slave NIC in a bonded active/passive configuration will drop all packets. I do wonder why there's so much traffic on a supposedly passive NIC, though. Regards, Lars -- Architect Storage/HA SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
