LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: Web vs Mail services

To: "isplist@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <isplist@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Web vs Mail services
Cc: lvs-users <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:25:54 +0900
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 10:18:27PM -0500, isplist@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> ]# ipvsadm -L -n
> >> IP Virtual Server version 1.2.0 (size=4096)
> >> Prot LocalAddress:Port Scheduler Flags
> >> -> RemoteAddress:Port           Forward Weight ActiveConn InActConn
> >> TCP  192.168.1.151:143 wlc
> >> TCP  192.168.1.151:25 wlc
> >> TCP  192.168.1.151:80 wlc
> >> -> 192.168.1.250:80             Route   1      0          0
> >> -> 192.168.1.249:80             Route   1      0          0
> >> TCP  192.168.1.151:110 wlc
> 
> >> Actually, that is very interesting. It shows exactly what's happening.
> >> Only port 80 traffic has been able to get through, none of the others.
> >>
> > In that case, is http working ?
> 
> Yes, so are all of the other services. If I connect directly to the mail
> servers, all services are running. If I connect through LVS, only http makes
> it, everything else fails.

Http working is a good sign.

> > There are no real servers assigned to the other virtual services.
> > You are using keepalived, right? I guess its health checker thinks
> > that the real servers for the non-http virtual services are unavailable.
> > Perhaps because they aren't responding as keepalived expects.
> 
> Keepalived, no, I've always thought that was part of another project. I'm only
> using LVS/pulse. The other LVS servers work fine for web services.

Ok, I was just guessing. In that case, the pulse health checks don't
seem to think that your real servers are up.

-- 
Horms
  H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/
  W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/


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