Ian Pratt
2005-Aug-05 14:13 UTC
[Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH] network -> network-bridge rename WAS: Re: RE: help with bugs
> > 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.I think you''re actually agreeing with me. Having a separate dom0 interface for administration is certainly good practice. However, having multiple bridges is probably relatively rare, so we can probably get away with not having multiple network-script lines. However, I''d prefer that we could.> > NB: The default for ''network-script'' should be to run no > script at all.That''s true for versions shipped with a distro, but right now, having the network-bridge script as the default when xend starts should actually work for most people. It probably won''t if you''re using NFS root or anything else fancy, but I still think its worth having. The current observed flakiness by some people is disturbing and we need to understand why. Please can someone who is seeing this problem please dig in to it. We''ve run the script on lots of different machines without seeing problems. Thanks, Ian _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Nate Carlson
2005-Aug-05 14:49 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH] network -> network-bridge rename WAS: Re: RE: help with bugs
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Ian Pratt wrote:> It probably won''t if you''re using NFS root or anything else fancy, but I > still think its worth having.Actually, it does work on NFS root. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | nate carlson | natecars@natecarlson.com | http://www.natecarlson.com | | depriving some poor village of its idiot since 1981 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Tom Wilkie
2005-Aug-05 15:09 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH] network -> network-bridge rename WAS: Re: RE: help with bugs
When I was doing some testing a few weeks ago, I found the network script would knock out my NFS root for dom 0 when I started xend - this would in turn hang the machine. We suspected it was when the routes / addresses got removed from eth0. We were using some quite new gigabit ethernet cards, ian though it might be because the promiscuois(?) flag was being lost. I will do some more testing on this next week, let you know if this is still the case. Tom Nate Carlson wrote:> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Ian Pratt wrote: > >> It probably won''t if you''re using NFS root or anything else fancy, but >> I still think its worth having. > > > Actually, it does work on NFS root. :) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > | nate carlson | natecars@natecarlson.com | http://www.natecarlson.com | > | depriving some poor village of its idiot since 1981 | > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Nate Carlson
2005-Aug-05 18:54 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH] network -> network-bridge rename WAS: Re: RE: help with bugs
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Tom Wilkie wrote:> When I was doing some testing a few weeks ago, I found the network > script would knock out my NFS root for dom 0 when I started xend - this > would in turn hang the machine. > > We suspected it was when the routes / addresses got removed from eth0. > We were using some quite new gigabit ethernet cards, ian though it might > be because the promiscuois(?) flag was being lost. > > I will do some more testing on this next week, let you know if this is > still the case.Huh, interesting - at least with 2.0, it''s working just fine for me with the standard bridging scripts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | nate carlson | natecars@natecarlson.com | http://www.natecarlson.com | | depriving some poor village of its idiot since 1981 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Sean Dague
2005-Aug-09 13:00 UTC
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] network -> network-bridge rename WAS: Re: RE: help with bugs
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 03:13:33PM +0100, Ian Pratt wrote:> > > 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. > > I think you''re actually agreeing with me. > > Having a separate dom0 interface for administration is certainly good > practice. However, having multiple bridges is probably relatively rare, > so we can probably get away with not having multiple network-script lines. > However, I''d prefer that we could.I was thinking about this over the weekend, and it occured to me that this might not be the case. Today, when we are all doing testing on xen-unstable, we''re pretty much always running test domUs so have something like: ethX -> bridged/routed to domUs ethY -> dom0 only, in case ethX dies However, in many production environment you need an administrative lan to all servers to apply software updates and the like. So you''d actually have. ethX -> bridged/routed production lan for domUs ethY -> bridged/routed admin lan for domUs Hopefully ethY would be reliable enough that we wouldn''t need a 3rd NIC to be admin for dom0 in the event of xen network stack fall over, but we might. Not proposing any solutions as yet, but it is worth noting that this might not be as uncommon as first thought. -Sean -- __________________________________________________________________ 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