|
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
On 08 December 2011 09:42 Simon Horman Wrote:
>I believe that the patch you are after is "ipvs: changes for local real
>server".
>
>
>http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/horms/ipvs.git;a=patch;h=fc6047676
>13b6d2036cdc35b660bc39451040a47
>
>Looking over the logs, you may also want to consider the following
>subsequent patches:
>
>* ipvs: changes for local client
>
>http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/horms/ipvs.git;a=patch;h=cb59155f2
>1d4c0507d2034c2953f6a3f7806913d
>
>* ipvs: restore support for iptables SNAT
>
>http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/horms/ipvs.git;a=patch;h=afb523c54
>718da57ff661950bd3287ec9eeb66bd
>
>> I'm trying to get the behaviour working on a rhel/centos 6 kernel which is
>based on 2.6.32.
>>
>> To my unpractised eye the differences between ipvs on vanilla 2.6.32.4 and
>2.6.35.4 do not seem too great. It seems involved on adding SCTP support.
>> I'm hoping (probably futile) that I might be able to use the files in the url
>above with little or no alteration.
>> Is that a vain hope?
>
>There do seem to be some more changes, but nothing that seems particularly
>relevant.
>
>> Also to clarify, the new behaviour is that for ipvs nat to a IP on the
>> node, the application needs to listen on the RIP and not the VIP?
>
>If you use the MASQ forwarding mechanism and the RIP is a local IP address
>on the director, then it will be handled locally.
>In this case the RIP and the VIP may be the same address.
_______________________________________________
Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
|
