Re: nopreempt not working - Keepalived 1.2.15

Sorry above is :

I should mention that Machine A has IP 10.21.7.5 (Priority 150) and Machine
B 10.21.7.4 (Prioriy 100).


On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:45 AM, krishnen chedambarum <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I should mention that Machine A has IP 10.21.7.5 (Priority 100) and
> Machine B 10.21.7.4 (Prioriy 100).
> I see in the code that the weight of the IP is also taken into
> consideration:
>
>
> https://github.com/acassen/keepalived/blob/18e7a036539b2137136311e1da1fd6f99662ad7d/keepalived/vrrp/vrrp.c
>
> However cannot see in there where the nopreempt in taken into
> consideration to not switch the VIP over to the newly rebooted
> machine....Might be totally wrong though
>
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:53 PM, krishnen chedambarum <[email protected]
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Lennart,
>>
>> Thks...tried it with a different VIP 10.21.7.7, but still same issue...
>> Anyway i can debug it any further to know exactly what happened?
>>
>> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Lennart Sorensen <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 10:01:01PM +0400, krishnen chedambarum wrote:
>>> > Hi All,
>>> >
>>> > Used latest release but getting a different problem:
>>> >
>>> > Machine B has VIP , When Machine A is rebooted, it acquires VIP when
>>> up.
>>> >
>>> > Message in logs for B is :
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > May  8 01:51:10 host-02 Keepalived_vrrp[16032]: VRRP_Instance(VI_1)
>>> > Received higher prio advert
>>> > May  8 01:51:10 host-02 Keepalived_vrrp[16032]: VRRP_Instance(VI_1)
>>> > Entering BACKUP STATE
>>> > May  8 01:51:10 host-02 Keepalived_vrrp[16032]: VRRP_Instance(VI_1)
>>> > removing protocol VIPs.
>>> > May  8 01:51:10 host-02 Keepalived_healthcheckers[16031]: Netlink
>>> reflector
>>> > reports IP 10.21.7.6 removed
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Should'nt the priority be ignored when nopreempt is set?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks
>>> >
>>> > My Configs again:
>>> >
>>> > Machine A:
>>> >
>>> > vrrp_instance VI_1 {
>>> >         interface eth0
>>> >         state BACKUP
>>> >         virtual_router_id 200
>>> >         nopreempt
>>> >         priority 150
>>> >         authentication {
>>> >             auth_type PASS
>>> >             auth_pass bar
>>> >         }
>>> >         virtual_ipaddress {
>>> >               10.21.7.6 dev eth0
>>> >         }
>>> >
>>> >          notify_backup "/usr/local/sbin/ota-app-down.sh"
>>> >         notify_master "/usr/local/sbin/ota-app-up.sh"
>>> >
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > Machine B:
>>> >
>>> > vrrp_instance VI_1 {
>>> >         interface eth0
>>> >         state BACKUP
>>> >        virtual_router_id 200
>>> >         nopreempt
>>> >         priority 100
>>> >         authentication {
>>> >             auth_type PASS
>>> >             auth_pass bar
>>> >         }
>>> >         virtual_ipaddress {
>>> >               10.21.7.6 dev eth0
>>> >         }
>>> >
>>> >          notify_backup "/usr/local/sbin/ota-app-down.sh"
>>> >         notify_master "/usr/local/sbin/ota-app-up.sh"
>>> >
>>> > }
>>>
>>> Any chance one of those routers owns 10.21.7.6 outside vrrp use?
>>> After all the VRRP rule is that any router that owns an IP will always
>>> be master if possible, even if nopreempt is set.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Len Sorensen
>>>
>>
>>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud 
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y

_______________________________________________
Keepalived-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/keepalived-devel