lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Slowness forming TIPC cluster with explicit node addresses
Date
On Fri, 2019-07-26 at 13:31 +0000, Jon Maloy wrote:
>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
> > On
> > Behalf Of Chris Packham
> > Sent: 25-Jul-19 19:37
> > To: tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
> > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: Slowness forming TIPC cluster with explicit node addresses
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm having problems forming a TIPC cluster between 2 nodes.
> >
> > This is the basic steps I'm going through on each node.
> >
> > modprobe tipc
> > ip link set eth2 up
> > tipc node set addr 1.1.5 # or 1.1.6
> > tipc bearer enable media eth dev eth0
> eth2, I assume...
>

Yes sorry I keep switching between between Ethernet ports for testing
so I hand edited the email.

> >
> >
> > Then to confirm if the cluster is formed I use tipc link list
> >
> > [root@node-5 ~]# tipc link list
> > broadcast-link: up
> > ...
> >
> > Looking at tcpdump the two nodes are sending packets
> >
> > 22:30:05.782320 TIPC v2.0 1.1.5 > 0.0.0, headerlength 60 bytes,
> > MessageSize
> > 76 bytes, Neighbor Detection Protocol internal, messageType Link
> > request
> > 22:30:05.863555 TIPC v2.0 1.1.6 > 0.0.0, headerlength 60 bytes,
> > MessageSize
> > 76 bytes, Neighbor Detection Protocol internal, messageType Link
> > request
> >
> > Eventually (after a few minutes) the link does come up
> >
> > [root@node-6 ~]# tipc link list
> > broadcast-link: up
> > 1001006:eth2-1001005:eth2: up
> >
> > [root@node-5 ~]# tipc link list
> > broadcast-link: up
> > 1001005:eth2-1001006:eth2: up
> >
> > When I remove the "tipc node set addr" things seem to kick into
> > life straight
> > away
> >
> > [root@node-5 ~]# tipc link list
> > broadcast-link: up
> > 0050b61bd2aa:eth2-0050b61e6dfa:eth2: up
> >
> > So there appears to be some difference in behaviour between having
> > an
> > explicit node address and using the default. Unfortunately our
> > application
> > relies on setting the node addresses.
> I do this many times a day, without any problems. If there would be
> any time difference, I would expect the 'auto configurable' version
> to be slower, because it involves a DAD step.
> Are you sure you don't have any other nodes running in your system?
>
> ///jon
>

Nope the two nodes are connected back to back. Does the number of
Ethernet interfaces make a difference? As you can see I've got 3 on
each node. One is completely disconnected, one is for booting over TFTP
 (only used by U-boot) and the other is the USB Ethernet I'm using for
testing.

>
> >
> >
> > [root@node-5 ~]# uname -a
> > Linux linuxbox 5.2.0-at1+ #8 SMP Thu Jul 25 23:22:41 UTC 2019 ppc
> > GNU/Linux
> >
> > Any thoughts on the problem?
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-28 23:05    [W:0.083 / U:6.648 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site