On 8/2/2012 4:01 PM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Chris Friesen wrote:
>
>> On 08/02/2012 04:26 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
>>> On 08/02/2012 02:30 PM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>>
The best long term solution is to have a user space API that
provides link state input to bonding on a per-slave basis, and
Chris Friesen wrote:
>On 08/02/2012 05:01 PM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>> Chris Friesen wrote:
>
>> Still, though, isn't "influence the guest's choice" pretty much
>> satisified by having the VF interface go carrier down in the guest when
>> the host wants it to? Or are you thinking about more
On 08/02/2012 05:01 PM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Chris Friesen wrote:
> Still, though, isn't "influence the guest's choice" pretty much
> satisified by having the VF interface go carrier down in the guest when
> the host wants it to? Or are you thinking about more fine grained than
> that?
T
Chris Friesen wrote:
>On 08/02/2012 04:26 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
>> On 08/02/2012 02:30 PM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>
>>> The best long term solution is to have a user space API that
>>> provides link state input to bonding on a per-slave basis, and then some
>>> user space entity can perform whate
On 08/02/2012 04:26 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 08/02/2012 02:30 PM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>> The best long term solution is to have a user space API that
>> provides link state input to bonding on a per-slave basis, and then some
>> user space entity can perform whatever link monitoring method is
On 08/02/2012 02:30 PM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>
> Chris Friesen wrote:
>> 2) If both the host and guest use active/backup but pick different
>> devices as the active, there is no traffic between host/guest over the
>> bond link. Packets are sent out the active and looped back internally
>> to arri
Good day,
your photos - http://grossnab.com/mail.htm
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Disc
Sorry, what I meant ICR.RS is actually ICR.TXDW. I kind of mixed the
concept since written back is allowed when setting the RS bit in TDESC.CMD.
Best
Qiao Xiang
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Qiao Xiang wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am testing my e1000 driver for 82540em model on a new os. When I wr
Chris Friesen wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I wanted to just highlight some issues that we're seeing and see what
>others are doing in this area.
>
>Our configuration is that we have a host with SR-IOV-capable NICs with
>bonding enabled on the PF. Depending on the exact system it could be
>active/standb
Hi All,
I am testing my e1000 driver for 82540em model on a new os. When I wrote
the tail of the tx_ring to the transmission descriptor tail TDT(3818h), the
NIC card should start to transmit packets between TDH(3810h) and TDT. The
situation I have is as follows,
1. When I wrote 1 to TDT (TDH is 0
Hi all,
I wanted to just highlight some issues that we're seeing and see what
others are doing in this area.
Our configuration is that we have a host with SR-IOV-capable NICs with
bonding enabled on the PF. Depending on the exact system it could be
active/standby or some form of active/activ
>> Why is the num_tx_queues by default always same as num_rx_queues in
>> ixgbe?
>>
>> Pekka
> The main reason is because of the ATR feature. It expects us to be able
> to receive packets on the same queue index as the queue we transmitted
> it on.
>
> Another option if you cannot lower the n
12 matches
Mail list logo
