Re: LVS-DR rr + wrr scheduler "lock up"

To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: LVS-DR rr + wrr scheduler "lock up"
From: "David A. Sinck" <lvs-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:49:19 -0700
\_ SMTP quoth Julian Anastasov on 1/28/2003 19:37 as having spake thusly:
\_      Hello,
\_ On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, David A. Sinck wrote:
\_ > I have resolved the ARP issue by putting the VIP on eth1 on the real
\_ > servers and no cable hooked up to eth1.
\_      This is _not_ a solution for solving the "ARP problem", try
\_ another solution.

Gah.  Then *why* is it documented as such?

  4.2. The cure(s)

  4.2.4. Put an extra NIC on the realserver to carry the VIP (on eth1)

  Possible cards would be a discarded ISA card (WD80x3), or a cheap
  100Mbit PCI card (eg Netgear FA310TX, $16 in USA in Nov 99) There is
  no traffic going through this NIC and it doesn't matter that it's an
  old slow card. The extra card is only required so that the
  realserver can have the VIP on the machine. With 2.2.x kernels you
  can't stop this device (eth1) from replying to arp requests, but if
  you don't connect the cable to it or don't put a route to it in the
  realserver's routing table, then the client won't be able to send it
  an arp request.

It seems to me that that says eth1/VIP is a simple fix, no?

It makes perfect sense that if the docs are wrong, I'm going to be
wrong following them.  :-)


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>