HTTP issue part 2

[Matthew Story]

I had considered trying the LVS-TUN as a solution, thank you for
suggesting it and reminding me of it.  It worked well, and was
surprisingly simple to set up.  I understand from the documentation
that there is no performance difference between the two, and I was
able to retain the high throughput setup that drew me to the DR setup
in the first place.  Thank you everyone for your help.

On 8/30/06, Todd Lyons <tlyons at ivenue.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:22:43PM -0500, Matthew Story wrote:
>
> >3. My first instict at this point is to make sure that forewarding is
> >set up properly, checked my sysctl.conf file and sure enough:
> >net.ipv4.ip_forward = 1
>
> Not needed for LVS-DR.  The packets aren't forwarded through the network
> stack, they are rewritten by the lvs system.
>
> >is set properly.  I checked the sysctl.conf on the real server too,
> >and everything apears to be in order, but that isn't the concern yet
> >as when I firewalled that server it should have timed out regardless
> >of the sysctl settings.
>
> Show us the relevant sysctl.conf settings on the real servers.
>
> >Given all that does anyone have any thoughts?  Have a similar error
> >they've championed?
>
> Show us the output on one of the real servers of 'ifconfig lo:0'.  Does
> it look like this?
>
> CentOS43[root at webmail1 ~]# ifconfig lo:0
> lo:0      Link encap:Local Loopback
>           inet addr:64.14.201.34  Mask:255.255.255.255
>           UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:16436  Metric:1
>
> Notice the /32 netmask.
>
> >>virtual=64.34.209.34:80
> >>        fallback=127.0.0.1:80
> >>        real=64.34.174.215:80 gate
> >>        real=64.34.180.165:80 gate
> >>        service=http
> >>        request="/update/index.html"
> >>        receive="Test Page"
> >>        scheduler=rr
> >>        #persistent=600
> >>        protocol=tcp
> >>        checktype=negotiate
> >>
> >>As you can see both of the webservers are on different subnets than
> >>each other, and also on a different subnet than both of the
> >>ultramonkey directors, though the director boxes are on the same
> >>subnet (170) and share a common default gateway.
>
> There is your problem.  In LVS-DR, you cannot have the real servers on
> different networks than the director.  To do this, you need to use
> LVS-TUN.
>
> This is from the LVS Howto, section 7 on LVS-DR:
>   ...all machines within the LVS-DR (ie the director and realservers)
>   must be able to arp each other. This means that they have to be on the
>   same network without any forwarding devices between them.
>
> This is from the LVS Howto, section 7 on LVS-Tun:
>   Unlike LVS-DR, with LVS-Tun the realservers can be on a network remote
>   from the director...
> --
> Regards...              Todd
> when you shoot yourself in the foot, just because you are so neurally
> broken that the signal takes years to register in your brain, it does
> not mean that your foot does not have a hole in it.      --Randy Bush
> Linux kernel 2.6.12-18mdksmp   7 users,  load average: 0.22, 0.22, 0.33
> _______________________________________________
> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org
> Send requests to lvs-users-request at LinuxVirtualServer.org
> or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
>


-- 
regards,
matt