From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) Description of problem: We have two ethernet cards on our HP proliant 360 server, and we have already set up the ethernet bonding. The OS running on the server is RHEL4. The warning message when restarting the network is as following, âkernel: bonding: Warning: the permanent HWaddr of eth0 - 00:12:79:94:66:1A - is still in use by bond0. Set the HWaddr of eth0 to a different address to avoid conflictsâ. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Set up the ethernet bonding 2. 3. Actual Results: Error message comes up. Expected Results: No error message. Additional info: For detail information of ethernet bonding we follow, please go to http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/marcelo/linux-2.4/Documentation/networking/bonding.txt
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