>>> Wengatz Herbert <herbert.weng...@baaderbank.de> schrieb am 12.07.2013 um 11:19 in Nachricht <e0a8d3556d452c42977202b2d60934660431fae...@msx2.baag>: > 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. I haven't added all the numbers, but it's also quite confusing that the "dropped" packets are pushed up to the bonding master: If "dropped packets" is part of the bonding implementation, the number of dropped packets should be hidden at the bonding level. If you have a bonding device with four slaves in active/passive (being paranoid), you should see three times as much dropped packets than received packets, right? (I adjusted the subject for this discussion) > > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
