Mailing List Archive

On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Sachie Shinohara wrote:

> Hi, I need help.
>
> I have an trouble with VIP.
> I'm using linux-2.2.18 kernel, ipvs-1.0.2-2.2.18, and piranha-0.4.17-6.

Try the redhat piranha lists...

>
> In failover test, ethernet was weird.

Please explain your methodology in performing your failover tests.

>
> I down the pulse deamon in primary Piranha server, then secondary
> Piranha server started.
> But, this thing happend.
> Primary server had still VIP(eth0:1, eth1:1), and secondary server had
> same VIP addresses as primary had. In this situation I could ping to

Depending on how you performed the failover test, this is normal. If you
cut all paths of communication between primary and secondary, then both
servers will have the VIP addresses.

> both IP, eth0:1&eth1:1, and even more virtual web server had been
> working fine.
>
> One thing I noticed was when stopping piranha, pulse was sending this
> message. 'pulse[****] : running command "/sbin/ifconfig" "eth1:1" "up"'
> and 'pulse[****] : running command "/sbin/ifconfig" "eth0:1" "up".'
> I am sure this message ran on stopping piranha.
>
> Is this thing normal? If so, I want to know why.
>


--
Michael Brown

Thank you for helping me.

> Please explain your methodology in performing your failover tests.

In failover tests, under the both primary and secondary Piranha servers are
running, I down pulse deamon in primary server (#/etc/rc.d/init.d/pulse
stop).
Few seconds later (our lvs.cf set timeout 10s), secondary piranha server
takes over.

|------------------------\
|
\
eth1:1 f.f.f.f
Client PC
/ \
/ \
/ \
eth1 b.b.b.b eth1 d.d.d.d
|----------------- | |---------------------|
| primary piranha | | secondary piranha
|
|----------------- | |---------------------|
eth0 a.a.a.a eth0 c.c.c.c
\ /
\ /
\ /
eth0:1 e.e.e.e
|
|
/ \
/ \
Web1 Web2
(real server) (real server)

In this test after secondary piranha server took over pulse deamon, primary
piranha server still had both eth0:1 and eth1:1 VIP addresses (here, e.e.e.e
and f.f.f.f). Of course secondary piranha server had both VIP addresses,
too. As I could see the web page(IP was f.f.f.f) from client PC, pulse
wasn't dead. Ping to eth0:1 and eth1:1 from both primary & secondary was
fine.

What I want to know is this is normal or not?
> >I'm using linux-2.2.18 kernel, ipvs-1.0.2-2.2.18, and piranha-0.4.17-6.

> Depending on how you performed the failover test, this is normal. If you
> cut all paths of communication between primary and secondary, then both
> servers will have the VIP addresses.

I'm sorry, but I don't get this. In failover system, could it be possible to
cut all paths of communication between primary and secondary? When I used
"pulse" in piranha, I think both primary and secondary machines should be
communicated to each other, cause "pulse" works just as automated process.

This is the point.
> > One thing I noticed was when stopping piranha, pulse was sending this
> > message. 'pulse[****] : running command "/sbin/ifconfig" "eth1:1" "up"'
> > and 'pulse[****] : running command "/sbin/ifconfig" "eth0:1" "up".'
> > I am sure this message ran on stopping piranha.
I think "pulse" works wrong. When stopping piranha, message sould be like
"/sbin/ifconfig" "eth1:1" "DOWN"!!

Am I right?

Sachie