From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA7C737B3 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 14:21:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Dec 2015 05:21:27 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,427,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="860347099" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.66.49]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Dec 2015 05:21:23 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:21:15 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Peter Xu Message-ID: <20151214132115.GE29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <000001d133ed$b2446eb0$16cd4c10$@samsung.com> <20151211094934.GX29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <001c01d133fd$d3a7d870$7af78950$@samsung.com> <20151214035842.GB18437@pxdev.xzpeter.org> <00c401d13641$5e53cf20$1afb6d60$@samsung.com> <20151214090406.GC18437@pxdev.xzpeter.org> <00ec01d13654$5f904c20$1eb0e460$@samsung.com> <20151214120937.GC29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <20151214130022.GE18437@pxdev.xzpeter.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151214130022.GE18437@pxdev.xzpeter.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Victor Kaplansky , "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4 for 2.3] vhost-user live migration support X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:21:29 -0000 On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 09:00:22PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 08:09:37PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > > It seems that we have exactly the same test environment set up: I have > > one server (where I normally do vhost test there) and one desktop (my > > dev box), > > > > On both hosts, there is an ovs bridge, with IP address 192.168.100.1 > > assigned manually. Later, I started a VM on the server, and manually > > assigned IP to 192.168.100.10. I then run "ping 192.168.100.1" for > > live migration testing. > > > > The migration to my desktop somehow works (even though there are some > > bugs in this patch set), however, I did see what Pavel saw: about 12 > > packets has been lost, which means about 12 seconds the network is not > > working well. > > Hi, Yuanhan, > > I _guess_ the problem for ping might be: guest ARP entry for > 192.168.100.1 is not updated. Or say, after guest migrated to host2 > from host1, guest is still trying to send packet to host1's NIC (no > one is telling it to update, right?), so no one is responding the > ping. When the entry is expired, guest will resend the ARP request, > and host2 will respond this time, with mac address on host2 provided > this time. After that, ping works again. Peter, Thanks for your input, and that sounds reasonable. You just reminded me that the host1's NIC is indeed different with host2's NIC: the ovs bridge mac address is different. I then had a quick try, setting the two ovs bridge with same mac address, and it works like a charm: the gap is gone :) --yliu > > (not familiar with OVS too, so am just taking it as a "vritual" > switch) > > Thanks. > Peter