Re: My 802.3ad is my bond
Hi, On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 09:13 -0800, Jay Vosburgh wrote: Steven Whitehouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] This commit: ece95f7fefe3afae19e641e1b3f5e64b00d5b948 seems to have caused a problem with parsing bond arguments as now only the numeric arguments seem to work (in modprobe.conf) and specifying 802.3ad fails. When I revert that patch in my local tree all seems ok. Thanks for the report; I know what the problem here is. I'll get a fix out. Also I notice that one of my two NICs now reports this: bonding: bond0: link status definitely down for interface eth0, disabling it bonding: bond0: Interface eth0 is already enslaved! bond0.5: no IPv6 routers present which I think is also new with this set of bonding updates, before it used to use both interfaces ok. I've not worked out which of the other patches causes this so far, but I can if its helpful, That would be helpful, as would some more details: e.g., the various options passed to bonding, the complete dmesg log, contents of /proc/net/bonding/bond0 [or whatever your interface is called], and anything else you think would be helpful. -J I've been through all the patches now, reverting each in turn and it seems that I still have the problem. Thats rather odd as I'm sure that I didn't have only one interface working before. When I get a moment I'll try and work out whats going on here, Steve. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
My 802.3ad is my bond
Hi, This commit: ece95f7fefe3afae19e641e1b3f5e64b00d5b948 seems to have caused a problem with parsing bond arguments as now only the numeric arguments seem to work (in modprobe.conf) and specifying 802.3ad fails. When I revert that patch in my local tree all seems ok. Also I notice that one of my two NICs now reports this: bonding: bond0: link status definitely down for interface eth0, disabling it bonding: bond0: Interface eth0 is already enslaved! bond0.5: no IPv6 routers present which I think is also new with this set of bonding updates, before it used to use both interfaces ok. I've not worked out which of the other patches causes this so far, but I can if its helpful, Steve. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: My 802.3ad is my bond
Steven Whitehouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] This commit: ece95f7fefe3afae19e641e1b3f5e64b00d5b948 seems to have caused a problem with parsing bond arguments as now only the numeric arguments seem to work (in modprobe.conf) and specifying 802.3ad fails. When I revert that patch in my local tree all seems ok. Thanks for the report; I know what the problem here is. I'll get a fix out. Also I notice that one of my two NICs now reports this: bonding: bond0: link status definitely down for interface eth0, disabling it bonding: bond0: Interface eth0 is already enslaved! bond0.5: no IPv6 routers present which I think is also new with this set of bonding updates, before it used to use both interfaces ok. I've not worked out which of the other patches causes this so far, but I can if its helpful, That would be helpful, as would some more details: e.g., the various options passed to bonding, the complete dmesg log, contents of /proc/net/bonding/bond0 [or whatever your interface is called], and anything else you think would be helpful. -J --- -Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: My 802.3ad is my bond
Hi, On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 09:13 -0800, Jay Vosburgh wrote: Steven Whitehouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] This commit: ece95f7fefe3afae19e641e1b3f5e64b00d5b948 seems to have caused a problem with parsing bond arguments as now only the numeric arguments seem to work (in modprobe.conf) and specifying 802.3ad fails. When I revert that patch in my local tree all seems ok. Thanks for the report; I know what the problem here is. I'll get a fix out. Also I notice that one of my two NICs now reports this: bonding: bond0: link status definitely down for interface eth0, disabling it bonding: bond0: Interface eth0 is already enslaved! bond0.5: no IPv6 routers present which I think is also new with this set of bonding updates, before it used to use both interfaces ok. I've not worked out which of the other patches causes this so far, but I can if its helpful, That would be helpful, as would some more details: e.g., the various options passed to bonding, the complete dmesg log, contents of /proc/net/bonding/bond0 [or whatever your interface is called], and anything else you think would be helpful. -J --- -Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ok. I'll try and work out which patch it is, but in the mean time: Ethernet Channel Bonding Driver: v3.2.3 (December 6, 2007) Bonding Mode: IEEE 802.3ad Dynamic link aggregation Transmit Hash Policy: layer2 (0) MII Status: up MII Polling Interval (ms): 100 Up Delay (ms): 0 Down Delay (ms): 0 802.3ad info LACP rate: slow Active Aggregator Info: Aggregator ID: 1 Number of ports: 1 Actor Key: 17 Partner Key: 4 Partner Mac Address: 00:12:a9:13:3f:67 Slave Interface: eth0 MII Status: down -- this one should be up as well Link Failure Count: 2 Permanent HW addr: 00:11:43:d7:75:74 Aggregator ID: 2 Slave Interface: eth1 MII Status: up Link Failure Count: 1 Permanent HW addr: 00:11:43:d7:75:75 Aggregator ID: 1 Bonding options: options bond0 miimon=100 mode=802.3ad I'll send the dmesg by private email as its quite large, Steve. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
