Open tbarbette opened 7 years ago
Ok, I understood the problem. It is not very clear that the normal DPDK cannot be used, even with that the interfaces get renamed on Debian. It would be interesting to add documentation about those two facts ;)
Hi tbarbette,
Thanks for reporting this issue. Recent kernels have started renaming interfaces and our setup.sh
script needs to be updated. We will do something about this soon.
Hi, Nice ! I think (in the meantime at least) just one or two lines in the doc mentioning the udev rules and the fact that the original DPDK cannot be used would be very helpful.
This is the udev rules to place in "/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules"
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="3c:fd:fe:9e:5c:40", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", NAME="dpdk0"
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="3c:fd:fe:9e:5c:41", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", NAME="dpdk1"
Changing the MAC addresses, of course.
Thanks.
Hi all,
I am a bit confused by the interface configuration. I've got two XL710 interfaces, ens6f0 and ens6f1. I bound them to igb_uio, and I got :
I tried to rename dpdk0/1 to ens6f0/1 in the mOS config but it does not work. I also tried without binding the interface first and I get the same message.
I'm not sure to understand what dpdk0 and dpdk1 refer to, are they real interfaces names? Or dpdk virtual name (dpdk, port 0) ? Should we rename our interfaces to dpdk0/dpdk1 instead of the default name ens6f0/ens6f1?
Thanks, Tom