Re: [lvs-users] bind error

To: " users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [lvs-users] bind error
From: Graeme Fowler <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:53:40 +0000
On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 13:14 +0100, bgs wrote:
> What can be the difference? In my setup moving vrrp to a physical eth
> device solved the bind error.

As I would expect.

> Might be a bonding driver difference? What do you use?

I've used the bond device before with no errors, but I wasn't using the
load-balancing option on the bond interface. My issue was failover
(spanning tree), so I had dual-homed the servers at layer 2 and made
their "left hand" port the active part of the bond interface. Rebooting
the switch they all connected to (or pulling its' power) made everything
go out the "right hand" port instead.

Interestingly, the hash mode you use is documented as follows:

  This algorithm is not fully 802.3ad compliant.  A
  single TCP or UDP conversation containing both
  fragmented and unfragmented packets will see packets
  striped across two interfaces.  This may result in out
  of order delivery.  Most traffic types will not meet
  this criteria, as TCP rarely fragments traffic, and
  most UDP traffic is not involved in extended
  conversations.  Other implementations of 802.3ad may
  or may not tolerate this noncompliance.

I wonder if this is the cause of your problem? The key exchange could
well result in TCP fragments, especially if you're using a large key.

Try changing that to "layer2", and try changing the bond mode to
"active-backup", just to see if it makes a difference.


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