On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:52:00PM +0000, Rauta, Alin wrote: > > Yes, but the updates need to be done for all links and I'm not sure adding > > this is a good thing. > > I'm now having 64 links on the switch and I need the failure detection in > > networkd to be quite fast because however even now it's probably slower due > > to evaluating dynamically the BindCarrier strings when comparing this with > > the previous solution with an UFD group monitoring some interfaces and with > > some internal counters knowing exactly when to issue "link_down" for an > > interface. So adding "bound_by" and "bound_to" makes the solution even > > slower. > > > How many times per second will you be avaluating this? > Each time an event happens: a link appears, disappears, changes flags or > names. Yes, I know the causes. I'm asking how often they can realisticly occur.
> > Besides this, having only one function > > "sd_network_link_get_carrier_bound_to" makes also sense because only the > > behavior of "bond_to" links is controlled by this feature. "bound_by" means > > almost nothing for an interface. A tool like "networkctl" may take into > > account to display only the "bound_to" links because that's what's > > relevant. The fact that "networkctl" displays both "bound_to" and > > "bound_by" it's a good thing, but it doesn't mean each tool should do that. > > > If a link goes down, isn't the "bound_by" list useful to look at links > > which need to be checked and potentiallly brought down? > It can be useful, that's why "networkctl" has the updates, but are talking > about the showing functionality or about the run-time "up-down" game between > interfaces ? The latter. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
