Messages in this thread | | | From | Chris Packham <> | Subject | Re: Slowness forming TIPC cluster with explicit node addresses | Date | Sun, 28 Jul 2019 21:04:21 +0000 |
| |
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? | |