On 08/03/2012 11:49 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 21:50 -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
>> Perhaps one argument against this is if the hardware supports loopback
>> modes or the edge relay in the hardware is acting like a VEB it may
>> still be possible to support VF to VF traffic
On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 21:50 -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> On 8/2/2012 4:01 PM, Jay Vosburgh 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 thinkin
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
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 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
10 matches
Mail list logo
