On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 07:25:10PM -0400, Ted Kaczmarek wrote:
> On Fri, 2005年10月14日 at 10:59 +1300, Nicholas Lee wrote:
> > On 10/14/05, Ted Kaczmarek <tedkaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > Is their a way to get mapping of domU to vif ?
> > > Log files don't provide it.
> > 
> > 
> > nic@wuwei:~$ sudo xm network-list 2
> > (1 ((backend-id 0) (mac aa:00:00:88:02:40) (handle 1) (backend
> > /local/domain/0/backend/vif/2/1) (tx-ring-ref 521) (rx-ring-ref 522)
> > (event-channel 10)))
> > 
> > 
> > Replaces vif-list
> > 
> > --
> > Nicholas Lee
> > http://stateless.geek.nz 
> > gpg 8072 4F86 EDCD 4FC1 18EF 5BDD 07B0 9597 6D58 D70C
>
> Well that makes it easy :-)
>
> xm create is not creating the interface, cut and dry.
>
>
> Also appears the domid matches the bridge interface, which is good and
> bad. From a snmp standpoint it really sucks when you have moving targets
> of instances to deal with, takes the simple part right out of the
> protocol as well as adding additional overhead. Would be best if the
> domU's could be mapped to a particular bridge interface or at least
> reuse the same one.
Xend's not really involved by this point -- the problem has been passed on to
the hotplug scripts, and any admin or distro is free to fiddle with these, of
course. We already have vif-nat, vif-bridge, and vif-route -- there's nothing
to stop you modifying these or replacing them with something that does more
intelligent bridging or whatever you need.
As for the bugs in the current implementations, it's clear that there are some
real bugs here, and we'd certainly appreciate it if you can figure out whether
the scripts are even running, and if they are, where and why they are failing.
I think you are right that there is a timing or race issue here, but I don't
have a good handle on where it is.
Ewan.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel