- 1. Re: [lvs-users] localnode question (score: 1)
- Author: Dean Scothern <dean.scothern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 14:55:37 +0000
- Thanks for your update. I've tried to apply these to a vanilla 2.6.35.4 kernel and I'm getting a lot of rejects (a few successes). What kernel do these patches apply to please? Best Regards _________
- /html/lvs-users/2011-12/msg00027.html (12,936 bytes)
- 2. Re: [lvs-users] localnode question (score: 1)
- Author: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 18:42:02 +0900
- A patch is a method of describing changes to a tree of source code. I believe that the patch you are after is "ipvs: changes for local real server". http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/horms/ip
- /html/lvs-users/2011-12/msg00024.html (12,705 bytes)
- 3. Re: [lvs-users] localnode question (score: 1)
- Author: Dean Scothern <dean.scothern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 08:45:53 +0000
- Hi, I'm a little confused when you talk about 'the patch' Is this the section that is relevant: https://github.com/horms/ipvs/tree/v2.6.35.4-ipvs-backport/include/net I'm trying to get the behaviour
- /html/lvs-users/2011-12/msg00023.html (13,404 bytes)
- 4. Re: [lvs-users] localnode question (score: 1)
- Author: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 00:00:50 +0200 (EET)
- Hello, What is changed with this patch from 2010-OCT-17 is that LOCALNODE mode (whether RIP is local IP or not) is determined for every packet, not when real server is updated. It helps to survive ma
- /html/lvs-users/2011-12/msg00021.html (15,229 bytes)
- 5. Re: [lvs-users] localnode question (score: 1)
- Author: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 18:26:03 +0900
- My opinion is that the Masq behaviour is a desirable new feature and I will be reticent to remove it in the future. I believe that I also observed the behaviour above using a backport of IPVS (~2.6.3
- /html/lvs-users/2011-12/msg00017.html (15,610 bytes)
- 6. Re: [lvs-users] localnode question (score: 1)
- Author: Dean Scothern <dean.scothern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 08:54:20 +0000
- Thanks Simon, This is certainly interesting that the behaviour has changed though I'm not sure if it's a bug somewhere or intended behaviour. Whilst it is possible that I can get a 3.1 kernel running
- /html/lvs-users/2011-12/msg00016.html (13,232 bytes)
- 7. Re: [lvs-users] localnode question (score: 1)
- Author: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 16:41:55 +0900
- Hi Dean, I should rummage through the changelog to see what has happened but I noticed during recent testing that I can't actually use the Local forwarding mechanism at all with recent (e.g. 3.1) ker
- /html/lvs-users/2011-12/msg00014.html (12,636 bytes)
- 8. Re: [lvs-users] localnode question (score: 1)
- Author: Dean Scothern <dean.scothern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 09:21:23 +0000
- Unfortunately not if I'm trying to run a service on the node itself. Connections to any ip on the node itself magically become Local connections. Best Regards Dino Dr Dean Scothern Infrastructure E:
- /html/lvs-users/2011-12/msg00009.html (11,094 bytes)
- 9. Re: [lvs-users] localnode question (score: 1)
- Author: Joseph Mack NA3T <jmack@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 04:43:39 -0800 (PST)
- you used to have to turn on localnode. I take it that now it's turned on by default and you can't turn it off? Can you make its weight=0? Joe -- Joseph Mack NA3T EME(B,D), FM05lw North Carolina jmack
- /html/lvs-users/2011-12/msg00008.html (10,558 bytes)
- 10. Re: [lvs-users] localnode question (score: 1)
- Author: Graeme Fowler <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 12:32:54 +0000
- As we're in relatively close proximity in terms of the day job (Dean's employer provides several services to my employer!) we just had a chat about this. His problem boils down to one thing: Is it po
- /html/lvs-users/2011-12/msg00007.html (10,467 bytes)
- 11. Re: [lvs-users] localnode question (score: 1)
- Author: Graeme Fowler <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 11:30:59 +0000
- Er... You can configure Exim to bind to any interface you want (and by extension not bind to specific interfaces). You need the "local_interfaces" option. By default it listens to *all* IPv4 addresse
- /html/lvs-users/2011-12/msg00006.html (9,383 bytes)
- 12. Re: [lvs-users] localnode question (score: 1)
- Author: Dean Scothern <dean.scothern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 11:20:21 +0000
- An update to my earlier reply The bypassing of the localnode behaviour (admittedly done by specifying a different port ) was done in a Patch By Simon Horman in the archive for this list. http://archi
- /html/lvs-users/2011-12/msg00005.html (14,147 bytes)
- 13. Re: [lvs-users] localnode question (score: 1)
- Author: Dean Scothern <dean.scothern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 09:00:57 +0000
- This statement confuses me because if I refer to a ip on the local node and then run ipvsadm I always get something like: IP Virtual Server version 1.2.1 (size=4096) Prot LocalAddress:Port Scheduler
- /html/lvs-users/2011-12/msg00004.html (12,564 bytes)
- 14. Re: [lvs-users] localnode question (score: 1)
- Author: Joseph Mack NA3T <jmack@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 17:28:30 -0800 (PST)
- you have to turn local node on. It's not on by default. I have no idea what low loading is don't know. Try google much better. However I don't understand what the 2ndary network is for and why is has
- /html/lvs-users/2011-12/msg00002.html (10,261 bytes)
- 15. Re: [lvs-users] localnode question (score: 1)
- Author: Dean Scothern <dean.scothern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:04:29 +0000
- The original reference to modifying lvs so that localnode is bypassed is in http://www.austintek.com/LVS/LVS-HOWTO/HOWTO/LVS-HOWTO.one_box_lvs.html by Horms 2 Sep 2006 the patch http://www.austintek.
- /html/lvs-users/2011-12/msg00000.html (14,529 bytes)
- 16. Re: [lvs-users] localnode question (score: 1)
- Author: Dean Scothern <dean.scothern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:42:13 +0000
- Mmm a feature, but always enabled? Perhaps I can stop lvs from using it, by modifying the source? The documentation (old) says that lvs loading is quite low so I wanted to test it. At the moment I ca
- /html/lvs-users/2011-11/msg00050.html (13,125 bytes)
- 17. Re: [lvs-users] localnode question (score: 1)
- Author: Joseph Mack NA3T <jmack@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 04:41:44 -0800 (PST)
- 1 and 0 are the only two possibilities in a binary system. localnode is uses a feature of the kernel. It's in LVS because it was possible to do. It isn't a recommended feature for a production LVS. Y
- /html/lvs-users/2011-11/msg00049.html (10,720 bytes)
- 18. Re: [lvs-users] localnode question (score: 1)
- Author: Dean Scothern <dean.scothern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:41:39 +0000
- What alternatives are there? Apologies for not explaining the configuration clearly. I have a two box solution in which both nodes are real servers. The boxes are connected via their primary interfac
- /html/lvs-users/2011-11/msg00047.html (13,776 bytes)
- 19. Re: [lvs-users] localnode question (score: 1)
- Author: Joseph Mack NA3T <jmack@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:38:29 -0800 (PST)
- other than not using it? I don't understand your lvs. You have the director in localnoce listening on the VIP and you have a 2nd box which is listening on the RIP via LVS-NAT? I thought there might h
- /html/lvs-users/2011-11/msg00045.html (10,502 bytes)
- 20. [lvs-users] localnode question (score: 1)
- Author: Dean Scothern <dean.scothern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:13:01 +0000
- Hi, Is there a way to either disable or bypass the localnode behaviour in ipvs? I'm trying to build a simple 2 node mail load balanced cluster. I have a mail server on each node and load balance betw
- /html/lvs-users/2011-11/msg00043.html (9,789 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu