From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 12 11:02:53 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EF711065670 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:02:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mh@kernel32.de) Received: from crivens.kernel32.de (crivens.terrorteam.de [81.169.171.191]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 273708FC1B for ; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:02:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mh@kernel32.de) Received: from www.terrorteam.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by crivens.kernel32.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06E89B0297; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:02:52 +0200 (CEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:02:51 +0200 From: Marian Hettwer To: Eugene Grosbein In-Reply-To: <20080812105552.GA89695@svzserv.kemerovo.su> References: <20080812105552.GA89695@svzserv.kemerovo.su> Message-ID: X-Sender: mh@kernel32.de User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.1-rc2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: lagg(4) and failover X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:02:53 -0000 On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:55:52 +0800, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:37:15PM +0200, Marian Hettwer wrote: > >> I'm using lagg(4) on some of our servers and I'm just wondering how the >> failover is implemented. >> The manpage isn't quite clear: >> >> failover Sends and receives traffic only through the master > port. >> If >> the master port becomes unavailable, the next active > port >> is >> used. The first interface added is the master port; > any >> interfaces added after that are used as failover > devices. >> >> What is meant by "becomes unavailable"? Is it just the physical link > which >> needs to become unavailable to trigger a failover? > > Yes. It seems you need lacp protocol described later in the manual. > Thanks for your answer. However, IMO lacp doesn't solve that problem. lacp is used for link aggregation, not failover. If I'm wrong over there, I should have a read about lacp... should do that anyway, I guess. The manpage states "In the event of changes in physical connectivity...". Again, does that mean, the link needs to be physically unavailable? If so, it'll be the same behaviour as in failover mode and doesn't solve my problem of a misconfigured switch... Cheers, Marian