On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 07:58 +1200, Steve Wray wrote:
> There was nothing wrong with my LVS-NAT config in the first place.
> On the one hand, Joseph hadn't actually verified that my config was
> faulty. I think he had assumed that I hadn't read the HOWTO and he
> dismissed my problems as lack of understanding of LVS-NAT.
Maybe Joe doesn't have the required knowledge (although I doubt that) to
confirm an ldirectord config is sane? Remember, ldirectord != LVS.
> So there was no reality check to tell me 'yes your config makes sense,
> should work, something else must be wrong'.
Well, there was no response. I looked at it earlier today, thought it
looked sane, but didn't respond as you were so far down the track of
castigating every suggestion being made.
> On the other hand, I omitted to mention that I was running this in XEN
> virtualisation. I read through the mailing list archives several times
> and caught this after posting to the list and having forced myself read
> through the archives yet *again*.
In that case, you missed an *utterly* crucial piece of information. As
you have now found out. If you'd mentioned it in the first place, we
could have gone back and said "ah, Xen, here's the list of gotchas".
> The two sets of LVS-NAT config files which I posted to the list were
> quite correct and would have worked, something Joseph might have noticed
> had he glanced at them.
ldirectord != LVS. And also != LVS-NAT. There are myriad ways to
configure your LVS, ldirectord is just one of them. Not all of us are
specialists in all variants.
> Once I fixed the TCP checksum issue on the realservers everything came
Perfect, and good on you for finding it.
Don't take the above the wrong way - you started with a somewhat bullish
approach, but you missed the vital piece of detail which would have
helped us all help you. Remember that no-one gets paid here, we're all
volunteers, and we all have lives outside of LVS...
Glad you fixed it.
Joe: time to start adding Xen to the HOWTO.