search for: unacked

...d idea to explain some things. In your script you are using the port 519 and 520 for the failover: -------------- failover peer "dhcp-failover" { primary; address dc1.samdom.example.com; port 519; peer address dc2.samdom.example.com; peer port 520; max-response-delay 60; max-unacked-updates 10; mclt 3600; split 128; load balance max seconds 3; } -------------- Why are you using this ports? Are this ports TCP or UDP? Will they be opened automatically? A short explanation would be good. As I told you before, it's one of the best howtos in the wiki. Stefan ---------...

...pare it with >>> something that would be TCP or QUIC. The fundamental difference between >>> virtio-vsock and e.g. TCP is that TCP operates in a packet loss environment. >>> So they are using timers for reliability, and receiver is always free to >>> discard any unacked data. >> Virtio-net knows nothing above L2, so they are totally transparent to device >> itself. I still don't get why not using virtio-net instead. >> >> >> Thanks > Is your question why is virtio-vsock used instead of TCP on top of IP > on top of virtio-net...

...pare it with >>> something that would be TCP or QUIC. The fundamental difference between >>> virtio-vsock and e.g. TCP is that TCP operates in a packet loss environment. >>> So they are using timers for reliability, and receiver is always free to >>> discard any unacked data. >> Virtio-net knows nothing above L2, so they are totally transparent to device >> itself. I still don't get why not using virtio-net instead. >> >> >> Thanks > Is your question why is virtio-vsock used instead of TCP on top of IP > on top of virtio-net...

...ence between > > > > > virtio-vsock and e.g. TCP is that TCP operates in a packet > > > > > loss environment. > > > > > So they are using timers for reliability, and receiver is > > > > > always free to > > > > > discard any unacked data. > > > > Virtio-net knows nothing above L2, so they are totally > > > > transparent to device > > > > itself. I still don't get why not using virtio-net instead. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > Is your...

...ence between > > > > > virtio-vsock and e.g. TCP is that TCP operates in a packet > > > > > loss environment. > > > > > So they are using timers for reliability, and receiver is > > > > > always free to > > > > > discard any unacked data. > > > > Virtio-net knows nothing above L2, so they are totally > > > > transparent to device > > > > itself. I still don't get why not using virtio-net instead. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > Is your...

...ice. > If you want to compare it with > something that would be TCP or QUIC. The fundamental difference between > virtio-vsock and e.g. TCP is that TCP operates in a packet loss environment. > So they are using timers for reliability, and receiver is always free to > discard any unacked data. Virtio-net knows nothing above L2, so they are totally transparent to device itself. I still don't get why not using virtio-net instead. Thanks > > >> I agree they could be different type of devices but codes could be shared in >> both guest and host (or even qemu...

...ice. > If you want to compare it with > something that would be TCP or QUIC. The fundamental difference between > virtio-vsock and e.g. TCP is that TCP operates in a packet loss environment. > So they are using timers for reliability, and receiver is always free to > discard any unacked data. Virtio-net knows nothing above L2, so they are totally transparent to device itself. I still don't get why not using virtio-net instead. Thanks > > >> I agree they could be different type of devices but codes could be shared in >> both guest and host (or even qemu...

Anybody have any experience with setting up dhcpd in failover mode between two servers? I set this up on a couple of servers, and it seems to be working, but I don't think it is working "right". It appears both servers are replying to all requests (which for renewals works okay because they both give the same address, but new requests get two different responses). I thought that

...; > you added the failover to your wiki: I think I found a little bug in your howto. You defined the part for the failover: ## Primary ## failover peer "dhcp-failover" { primary; address dc1.samdom.example.com; peer address dc2.samdom.example.com; max-response-delay 60; max-unacked-updates 10; mclt 3600; split 128; load balance max seconds 3; } ########## ## Secondary ## failover peer "dhcp-failover" { secondary; address dc2.samdom.example.com; peer address dc1.samdom.example.com; max-response-delay 60; max-unacked-updates 10; mclt 3600; load ba...

...;>>>> virtio-vsock and e.g. TCP is that TCP operates in a packet > >>>>>> loss environment. > >>>>>> So they are using timers for reliability, and receiver is > >>>>>> always free to > >>>>>> discard any unacked data. > >>>>> Virtio-net knows nothing above L2, so they are totally > >>>>> transparent to device > >>>>> itself. I still don't get why not using virtio-net instead. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>&...

...;>>>> virtio-vsock and e.g. TCP is that TCP operates in a packet > >>>>>> loss environment. > >>>>>> So they are using timers for reliability, and receiver is > >>>>>> always free to > >>>>>> discard any unacked data. > >>>>> Virtio-net knows nothing above L2, so they are totally > >>>>> transparent to device > >>>>> itself. I still don't get why not using virtio-net instead. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>&...

...firewall is running Add the following for the failover peers to the configuration files on the primary: failover peer "dhcp-failover" { primary; address dc1.samdom.example.com; port 519; peer address dc2.samdom.example.com; peer port 520; max-response-delay 60; max-unacked-updates 10; mclt 3600; split 128; load balance max seconds 3; } ..and secondary: failover peer "dhcp-failover" { secondary; address dc2.samdom.example.com; port 520; peer address dc1.samdom.example.com; peer port 519; max-response-delay 60; max-unacked-upda...

On 2018/11/15 ??3:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:56:03AM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote: >> Hi Stefan, Michael, Jason and everyone, >> >> Several days ago, I discussed with jason about "Vsock over Virtio-net". >> This idea has two advantages: >> First, it can use many great features of virtio-net, like batching, >> mergeable rx

On 2018/11/15 ??3:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:56:03AM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote: >> Hi Stefan, Michael, Jason and everyone, >> >> Several days ago, I discussed with jason about "Vsock over Virtio-net". >> This idea has two advantages: >> First, it can use many great features of virtio-net, like batching, >> mergeable rx

If I don't use DHCP failover, can you tell me how to do to to have manually dhcp start method working... I think I could made a mistake, this is what i did : ( I using Louis script from "old set of script" directory : https://secure.bazuin.nl/scripts/ ) - On server S4 : resolv.conf set to S4 first and S4bis in second - On server S4 : in dhcp-dyndns-debian.sh,

...nd e.g. TCP is that TCP operates in a packet > >>>>>>>> loss environment. > >>>>>>>> So they are using timers for reliability, and receiver is > >>>>>>>> always free to > >>>>>>>> discard any unacked data. > >>>>>>> Virtio-net knows nothing above L2, so they are totally > >>>>>>> transparent to device > >>>>>>> itself. I still don't get why not using virtio-net instead. > >>>>>>> > >>&gt...

...the failover peers to the configuration files on > the primary: > > failover peer "dhcp-failover" { > primary; > address dc1.samdom.example.com; > port 519; > peer address dc2.samdom.example.com; > peer port 520; > max-response-delay 60; > max-unacked-updates 10; > mclt 3600; > split 128; > load balance max seconds 3; > } > > ..and secondary: > > failover peer "dhcp-failover" { > secondary; > address dc2.samdom.example.com; > port 520; > peer address dc1.samdom.example.com; > peer...

...virtio-vsock ensures reliability. If you want to compare it with something that would be TCP or QUIC. The fundamental difference between virtio-vsock and e.g. TCP is that TCP operates in a packet loss environment. So they are using timers for reliability, and receiver is always free to discard any unacked data. > I agree they could be different type of devices but codes could be shared in > both guest and host (or even qemu) for not duplicating features(bugs). > > Thanks > > > > The ones that you mention > > all seem to be mostly of use to the networking stack. &gt...

...e fundamental difference >>>> between >>>> virtio-vsock and e.g. TCP is that TCP operates in a packet loss >>>> environment. >>>> So they are using timers for reliability, and receiver is always >>>> free to >>>> discard any unacked data. >>> Virtio-net knows nothing above L2, so they are totally transparent >>> to device >>> itself. I still don't get why not using virtio-net instead. >>> >>> >>> Thanks >> Is your question why is virtio-vsock used instead of TCP...

...ence between >>>>>> virtio-vsock and e.g. TCP is that TCP operates in a packet >>>>>> loss environment. >>>>>> So they are using timers for reliability, and receiver is >>>>>> always free to >>>>>> discard any unacked data. >>>>> Virtio-net knows nothing above L2, so they are totally >>>>> transparent to device >>>>> itself. I still don't get why not using virtio-net instead. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>> Is...