Bug 159108
Summary: | error message comes up after ethernet bonding | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 | Reporter: | EE CAP Admin <ee-cap-admin-dl> | ||||
Component: | kernel | Assignee: | John W. Linville <linville> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Brian Brock <bbrock> | ||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||
Version: | 4.0 | CC: | davej | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | x86_64 | ||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2005-06-06 16:57:02 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
Embargoed: | |||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
EE CAP Admin
2005-05-29 23:10:04 UTC
Please attach the output of running "sysreport". When the network restarts, does the bond function correctly? Are all expected interfaces still part of the bond? When the bonding interface comes-up, it "steals" a MAC address from one of its slaves (generally the first one). The message you are seeing occurs when the interface that had it's MAC address stolen is removed from the bond while the bond remains active. My guess is that this is just an artifact of the restart process removing interfaces from the bond prior to bringing the bond down before restarting. If the bond continues to work properly after the network restart, then the message can be safely ignored. Created attachment 115165 [details]
Output of sysreport
Hi John, Thanks for getting back about this. OK - as you have seen - sysreport uploaded. Yes - the bonding does seem to always work; we were just concerned that we were getting errors and didn't want it to bite us in the backside later on. So is something starting/stoppin in the wrong order? Does something need modifying in /etc/init.d/network? Thanks, Paul Considering the situation, I don't really think it would be right to call it the "wrong" order. It would be difficult to keep track of the perfect order for bringing the slave interfaces up and down, all just to avoid a warning message that ultimately doesn't effect the situation. I'm going to close this as NOTABUG, since it is at worst really just an annoying message. Feel free to reopen this if you observe actual loss of functionality. Thanks! Hi John - thanks for the info on this. I'm not going to reopen... I just wanted confirmation that things were operating properly and that we hadn't set something up wrong. Paul |