libteam January 2018

libteam@lists.fedorahosted.org

4 participants
5 discussions

[ISSUE] Failed to find "enabled" option.
by Xin Long 16 Sep '19

16 Sep '19

I found this err in "loadbalance" and "lacp" runner when adding ports. It's caused by trying to set "enabled" option in .port_link_changed() or .port_changed(). When a new port is added, the first 'port changed event' process is earlier than CMD TEAM_CMD_OPTIONS_GET, in this CMD, all the options are synchronized from kernel. It means there's no 'enabled' option yet when calling port_link_changed in the first 'port changed event' process. In lb_event_watch_port_link_changed and lacp_event_watch_port_changed, they call teamd_port_check_enable to set 'enabled' option. this err is triggered. I'm not sure why teamd_port_check_enable needs to check if 'enabled' option exists. I checked the ab's .port_link_changed(), it just sets it by calling team_set_port_enabled(), instead of checking 'enabled' option first. can we just use team_set_port_enabled to set it directly in .port(_link)_changed OR improve teamd_port_check_enable to avoid this err ? Thanks.

3 5

[PATCH resend] man: fix runner.sys_prio default
by Francesco Giudici 02 Feb '18

02 Feb '18

runner.sys_prio default is 65535, not 255. 255 is actually the default value of ports.PORTIFNAME.lacp_prio. Signed-off-by: Francesco Giudici <fgiudici(a)redhat.com> --- man/teamd.conf.5 | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/man/teamd.conf.5 b/man/teamd.conf.5 index 0545023..dc5000e 100644 --- a/man/teamd.conf.5 +++ b/man/teamd.conf.5 @@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ System priority, value can be 0 \(en 65535. .RS 7 .PP Default: -.BR "255" +.BR "65535" .RE .TP .BR "runner.min_ports " (int) @@ -269,6 +269,11 @@ Default: .TP .BR "ports.PORTIFNAME.lacp_prio " (int) Port priority according to LACP standard. The lower number means higher priority. +.RS 7 +.PP +Default: +.BR "255" +.RE .TP .BR "ports.PORTIFNAME.lacp_key " (int) Port key according to LACP standard. It is only possible to aggregate ports with the same key. -- 2.14.3

2 1

Re: Team setup with two network devices
by Wolf Humble 26 Jan '18

26 Jan '18

Hi, thanks for the thorough explanation! Have a great day! Wolf On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Jamie Bainbridge <jamie.bainbridge(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 26 January 2018 at 01:13, Wolf Humble <wolfhumble(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On more question about teaming -- that wouldn't work in my case since >> I want ALL IPs to answer at the same time -- but just curious: >> It seems like teaming with activebackup would work even for interfaces >> that are in different broadcast domains, as long as you don't mind >> that only IPs connected to eth1 will answer when eth1 and eth2 are up, >> and only IPs connected to eth2 willl answer when eth1 is down. (From >> what I remember when testing the activebackup mode earlier in my >> setup). >> Do I understand that correctly? > > That's almost correct. > > It will depend on which is the *active slave* at the time, which is a > separate thing to linkstate. You can have both slave links up and > switch which is the active one. You can change whether a preferred > slave always takes over when it's up. See the prio/sticky options on > the active-backup runner. Of course a slave must actually be up to be > selected as the active slave! > > Once the active slave is decided, the system will only receive traffic > from one set of IPs (either aaa+bbb or ccc+ddd) depending on which > slave is up, hence the system will only reply to those IPs speaking in > the active slave. You're right that the incoming traffic will just > happen to be from different subnets. > > However, there's nothing to stop the system trying to use its own IP > in the wrong network, say sending ARP requests for other hosts in > network aaa out the team. Whether anything responds to those requests > will depend on which slave is up. > > It would also be tricky to manage which default gateway is in use > depending on which slave is up, so it would be a pretty terrible > solution for failover. > > With your interface config, you may be more interested in policy > routing and multiple upstream gateways: > http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html > > Jamie

1 0

Team setup with two network devices
by Wolf Humble 26 Jan '18

26 Jan '18

Hi, I have a server with two network devices: eth1 and eth2. I have been given 4 IP addresses via a router that I don't have any control over. Two of them go only to eth1, and the other two only to eth2. Each IP address has its own gateway. The devices, ip addresses and gateways are as following: eth1 – ip1: aaa.189.aaa.254 - GW: aaa.189.aaa.253 eth1 – ip2: bbb.143.bbb.214 - GW: bbb.143.bbb.213 eth2 – ip3: ccc.170.ccc.202 - GW: ccc.170.ccc.201 eth2 – ip4: ddd.180.ddd.101 - GW: ddd.180.ddd.100 Two or more of the IPs will be used for virtual machines. I have set my network up in the following way: =========================== [#] cat ifcfg-eno1 NAME=eno1 DEVICE=eno1 DEVICETYPE=TeamPort ONBOOT=yes TEAM_MASTER=team1 TEAM_PORT_CONFIG="{'prio': 9}" [#] cat ifcfg-eno2 NAME=eno2 DEVICE=eno2 DEVICETYPE=TeamPort ONBOOT=yes TEAM_MASTER=team1 TEAM_PORT_CONFIG="{'prio': 10}" [#] cat ifcfg-team1 BRIDGE=br0 DEVICE=team1 DEVICETYPE=Team ONBOOT=yes BOOTPROTO=none TEAM_CONFIG="{'runner': {'name': 'lacp', 'active': true, 'fast_rate': true, 'tx_hash': ['eth', 'ipv4', 'ipv6']},'link_watch': {'name': 'ethtool'},"ports":{"eno1":{},"eno2":{}}}" PROXY_METHOD=none BROWSER_ONLY=no DEFROUTE=yes IPV4_FAILURE_FATAL=no IPV6INIT=no NAME="Team team1" UUID=702de3eb-2e80-897c-fd52-cd0494dd8123 [#] cat ifcfg-br0 DEVICE=br0 STP=yes BRIDGING_OPTS=priority=32768 TYPE=Bridge BOOTPROTO=none # IPADDR=aaa.189.aaa.254 PREFIX=30 GATEWAY=aaa.189.aaa.253 DNS1=aaa.bbb.ccc.aaa DNS2=aaa.bbb.ccc.bbb # IPADDR1=bbb.143.bbb.214 PREFIX1=30 GATEWAY1=bbb.143.bbb.213 # IPADDR2=ccc.170.ccc.202 PREFIX2=30 GATEWAY2=ccc.170.ccc.201 # IPADDR3=ddd.180.ddd.101 PREFIX3=30 GATEWAY3=ddd.180.ddd.100 # DEFROUTE=yes IPV4_FAILURE_FATAL=no IPV6INIT=yes IPV6_AUTOCONF=yes IPV6_DEFROUTE=yes IPV6_FAILURE_FATAL=no NAME=br0 NM_CONTROLLED=YES ONBOOT=yes PROXY_METHOD=none BROWSER_ONLY=no UUID=d2d68553-f97e-7549-7a26-b34a26f29318" =========================== [Question 1] It took my some time to figure out that LACP, requires a specific setup on the router (that I don't have control over), but the setup above was answering for all my IP's. I see via: [#] teamnl team1 options ... mode roundrobin ... => So is roundrobin the default mode, and takes over even when LACP is set up in TEAM_CONFIG? [Question 2] => Knowing that eth1 only answers requests to the two firsts IP addresses, and eth2 the two last IP addresses, is mode roundrobin the only sensible mode/runner in my case? (Activebackup seems to only answer requests to the IPs connected to either eth1 OR eth2, not both. Loadbalance seems have the same challenge . . . ) [Question 3] => If roundrobin is the most sensible mode, would it be enough to set up 'ifcfg-team1', like this? [#] cat ifcfg-team1 ... TEAM_CONFIG='{"runner": {"name": "roundrobin"}}' ... => OR Would I need to set up "ports":{"eno1":{},"eno2":{}} inside the TEAM_CONFIG? [Question 4] => Does it make sense to use a team in my case, or could I just drop the team and connected the bridge(s) to eno1 and eno2 instead? E.g: What do I gain by setting up a team in my case? Thanks! Best regards Wolf

2 3

[PATCH] man: fix runner.sys_prio default
by Francesco Giudici 18 Jan '18

18 Jan '18

runner.sys_prio default is 65535, not 255. 255 is actually the default value of ports.PORTIFNAME.lacp_prio. --- man/teamd.conf.5 | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/man/teamd.conf.5 b/man/teamd.conf.5 index 0545023..dc5000e 100644 --- a/man/teamd.conf.5 +++ b/man/teamd.conf.5 @@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ System priority, value can be 0 \(en 65535. .RS 7 .PP Default: -.BR "255" +.BR "65535" .RE .TP .BR "runner.min_ports " (int) @@ -269,6 +269,11 @@ Default: .TP .BR "ports.PORTIFNAME.lacp_prio " (int) Port priority according to LACP standard. The lower number means higher priority. +.RS 7 +.PP +Default: +.BR "255" +.RE .TP .BR "ports.PORTIFNAME.lacp_key " (int) Port key according to LACP standard. It is only possible to aggregate ports with the same key. -- 2.14.3

2 2

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

libteam January 2018