Ian Pratt
2005-Aug-05 00:55 UTC
RE: [PATCH] network -> network-bridge rename WAS: Re: [Xen-devel] RE: help with bugs
> > Next, I''d make it such that it''s possible to have multiple > > network-script lines, each with parameters e.g. something like: > > I started this - but it became less than desirable to stick > all of this into xend. That is, what I was thinking was - we > simply point the tools to a configuration file that''s a top > level script, and hide all of the meat of the work inside > those scripts. If we change the syntax, we wouldn''t require a > change to the tools, would be one advantage. > > > (network-script ( network-bridge ( bridge xen-br0 ) ( > netdev eth0 ) ) > > ) (network-script ( network-bridge ( bridge xen-br1 ) ( > netdev eth1 ) > > ) )I guess we could just point it at a top-level script, but it seems a bit of a cop out, and rather different to the way we configure and invoke other helper scripts. I think at the very least we should allow the ''netdev'' to be cloned and added to the bridge to be specified in xend-config.sxp. I guess this could be another top-level variable, or better specified as a parameter to the network-script (as above). I guess setups with multiple active NICs are relatively rare and can be dealt with using a top-level script (or configured manually). NB: The default for ''network-script'' should be to run no script at all. Ian _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Sean Dague
2005-Aug-05 12:18 UTC
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] network -> network-bridge rename WAS: Re: RE: help with bugs
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 01:55:19AM +0100, Ian Pratt wrote:> > > Next, I''d make it such that it''s possible to have multiple > > > network-script lines, each with parameters e.g. something like: > > > > I started this - but it became less than desirable to stick > > all of this into xend. That is, what I was thinking was - we > > simply point the tools to a configuration file that''s a top > > level script, and hide all of the meat of the work inside > > those scripts. If we change the syntax, we wouldn''t require a > > change to the tools, would be one advantage. > > > > > (network-script ( network-bridge ( bridge xen-br0 ) ( > > netdev eth0 ) ) > > > ) (network-script ( network-bridge ( bridge xen-br1 ) ( > > netdev eth1 ) > > > ) ) > > I guess we could just point it at a top-level script, but it seems a bit > of a cop out, and rather different to the way we configure and invoke > other helper scripts. > > I think at the very least we should allow the ''netdev'' to be cloned and > added to the bridge to be specified in xend-config.sxp. I guess this > could be another top-level variable, or better specified as a parameter > to the network-script (as above). > > I guess setups with multiple active NICs are relatively rare and can be > dealt with using a top-level script (or configured manually).I''d disagree with that (unless I am misunderstanding the definition of active). Every pizza box server I''ve seen ship in the last 3 years has had dual onboard nics. Dual nic setup for server (one for production and one for administration) is best practice for any reasonable size server environment.> NB: The default for ''network-script'' should be to run no script at all. > > > Ian > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel >-- __________________________________________________________________ Sean Dague Mid-Hudson Valley sean at dague dot net Linux Users Group http://dague.net http://mhvlug.org There is no silver bullet. Plus, werewolves make better neighbors than zombies, and they tend to keep the vampire population down. __________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel