Re: Bleed-over between VIPs? Connection routing issue?
Kelly Corbin <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.highavailability.ultramonkey |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
The load balancers and clients are all RHEL 3, kernel ver. 2.4.21-32.0.1.EL Kelly Horms wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 12:53:52PM -0500, Kelly Corbin wrote: > >>I'm having a strange issue that I've been unable to figure out the last >>few days. >>My setup consists of a load balancer and 6 real servers in the High >>Capacity High Availability and Load Balancing configuration. I've been >>running in this configuration for several years now with mostly flawless >>service. >> >>All of the real servers are configured exactly the same with one small >>exception. To facilitate testing, in the load balancer I've set 2 of >>the web servers to be served by a different VIP than the 4 "production" >>web servers. All of the web servers are setup with both of the VIPs >>however. Normally, I set the apache conf to be identical on all the >>servers regardless of whether they will be hosting the test domains or >>not but this time I happened to not enable them on the production >>servers which allowed me to catch this problem easier. >> >>Every now and then (maybe 1 in 10-50 clicks) I will get the default page >>for one of the random production web servers. >> >>At first I thought this was an ARPing issue but after checking >>everything thoroughly, the real servers are not ARPing for the VIPs. >> >>After much log-watching, I've found that it usually (but not always) >>coincides with removing or quiescing real servers or when adding the >>fall back (127.0.0.1 on the load balancer). It seems that connections >>are being briefly routed incorrectly in the instant between when a >>server is removed and at other various seemingly random times. >> >>I've turned quiescent on and off and persistence off and on as an >>attempted work-around but the problem still continues. Oddly enough, I >>don't see this happening with my other VIPs (i.e. the production domains >>are not inadvertently being routed to the test servers). >> >>Has anyone seen this before? I'm trying to figure out how this could >>possibly happen. > > > That does seem quite strange. I suspect that you are seeing > a bug in LVS, which kernel are you running? > -- -------------------------------------------- -- Kelly Corbin -- Network Administrator -- -- http://www.theiqgroup.com -- -- The IQ Group, Inc. -- 6740 Antioch Suite 260 -- Merriam, KS 66204 -- (913)-722-6700 x105 -- Fax (913)722-7264 -------------------------------------------- -- Ultra Monkey - http://www.ultramonkey.org/ To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected], with a body: unsubscribe ultramonkey-users [email protected] where "[email protected]" is YOUR email address.