topic Re: Commit vs. Commit Force in General Topics

Commit vs. Commit Force

das — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:06:53 GMT

Does anyone know what exactly the differences are between a commit and commit force? Does the commit force disregard error messages and commit an otherwise 'bad' config that could result in errors? Does it reorder the commit process? Does it cut off or restart a special process or server function to allow commit changes to take place?

One thread mentioned "Indeed the "commit force" command will submit the whole configuration" from here another references the admin guide "> force — Forces the commit command in the event of a conflict" here but other references say it has solved problems almost here and here with no real explanation as to why you would want or not want to commit force.

Does anyone have information on this? I ask because I had someone ask me the same thing and all I could really say was "it's like a commit on steroids, it just works".

Re: Commit vs. Commit Force

kfindlen — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:22:25 GMT

A standard commit only pushes changes, or a diff of the configuration to the dataplane. A commit force causes the entire configuration to be parsed and pushed to the dataplane. It is a useful troubleshooting step to verify the current candidate configuration is completely pushed to the dataplane, but is typically not required for regular day to day configuration changes.

Re: Commit vs. Commit Force

mharding — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 20:18:11 GMT

I concour.

I have used commit force to solve issues with the passive device not syncing the configuration.