similar to: Problem

Hi list, I have tried google but just cant get this to work or figure it out. My setup ======== vanilla 2.6.13 kernel with CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH=y CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED=y CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_RR=y CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_RANDOM=y CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_WRANDOM=y CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_DRR=y My configuration: A host with two ppp links. Ontop of these two ppp dialup

Hi Tinc Mailing-Group, Having set up the kernel correctly, and got tinc running successfully, I am now trying to get two VPNs running at once. Hence I need to have two ethertap devices ( /dev/tap0 and /dev/tap1 ). The first tap0 device was created thus: mknod -m 600 /dev/tap0 c 36 16 chown 0.0 /dev/tap0 The second tap1 device was created too: mknod -m 600 /dev/tap1 c 36 17 chown 0.0 /dev/tap1

Hello list, Please don''t shoot me. I know I''m doing something with bonding that bonding wasn''t made for. I just want to give it a try. I want a simple mechanism to have a failover on a 24Mbit line to a 2Mbit line in case the 24Mbit line goes down. Between A and B there are two lines: a 24Mbit and a 2Mbit. I use two OpenVPN tunnels with tap devices: +-- tap0 (A)---

I have the following situation: A Linux 2.4.22 server: Physical ethernet: lan1 - Ethernet port (Internet) lan2 - Ethernet port (Cisco Switch, Trunk port) Tunnel: tap1 - OpenVPN in tcp-server mode VLAN's: lan2.201 lan2.202 lan2.203 tap1.201 tap1.202 tap1.203 Bridges: br201 (lan2.201, tap1.201) br202 (lan2.202, tap1.202) br203 (lan2.203, tap1.203) On the other end, the same type of server:

There has been numerous threads etc regarding this but all that has left me is more than a little confused :-(. I have setup and environment consisting of two OpenVPN tunnels and wish to load balance at the packet level between them. I am currently running on Linux edm 2.4.21-20.EL.c0custom #2 Tue Oct 12 08:52:23 BST 2004 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux And have install Quagga at each end to provide

We have a WAN with subnets and our remote SAMBA Hosts vanish after about a month from the WINS server. We have mixed SAMBA versions from 2.0.7 to 2.2.1a. NT (wins) 10.1.1.1 SAMBA 1 10.1.1.2 | | | SAMBA 2 10.2.2.2 All SAMBA hosts are set up to use the NT WINS server and after a SAMBA start they are there. But they 'fade away' in time. Is there a setting I am missing? Or do I

We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest transmission. Consider the following setup: +-----+ +-----+ | VM1 | | VM2 | +--+--+

We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest transmission. Consider the following setup: +-----+ +-----+ | VM1 | | VM2 | +--+--+

Hello, It seems currently when you "yum update" CentOS 6.6 Xen host you end up getting python-virtinst from c6 base repo: python-virtinst-0.600.0-24.el6.noarch and not from Xen4CentOS repo, because the version there is "older": 0.600.0-19. .. which means the centos/xen-specific patch in python-virtinst is "lost". (default to tap2 instead of tap1, to make blktap2

Hi all. I would need to use a single physical interface on a Linux box to manage two different IP addresses (belonging to two separate logical subnets) with two different MAC address. (I need to emulate te presence of two separate physical interfaceses for a PC on the same LAN, at layer 2 and layer 3). Is it possible to use the linux ethernet bridging code and two tap interfaces for this

On 03/10/2014 04:03 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 01:28:27PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> > We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >> > exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation >> > of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since >> > any delay or blocking

On 03/10/2014 04:03 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 01:28:27PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> > We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >> > exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation >> > of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since >> > any delay or blocking

On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation >> of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since >> any delay or blocking of a single packet

On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation >> of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since >> any delay or blocking of a single packet

On 02/26/2014 02:32 PM, Qin Chuanyu wrote: > On 2014/2/26 13:53, Jason Wang wrote: >> On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>>> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >>>> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation

On 02/26/2014 02:32 PM, Qin Chuanyu wrote: > On 2014/2/26 13:53, Jason Wang wrote: >> On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>>> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >>>> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation

We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest transmission. Consider the following setup: +-----+ +-----+ | VM1 | | VM2 | +--+--+

We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest transmission. Consider the following setup: +-----+ +-----+ | VM1 | | VM2 | +--+--+

On 02/26/2014 05:23 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 03:11:21PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> > On 02/26/2014 02:32 PM, Qin Chuanyu wrote: >>> > >On 2014/2/26 13:53, Jason Wang wrote: >>>> > >>On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>> > >>>On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason

On 02/26/2014 05:23 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 03:11:21PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> > On 02/26/2014 02:32 PM, Qin Chuanyu wrote: >>> > >On 2014/2/26 13:53, Jason Wang wrote: >>>> > >>On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>> > >>>On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason