|
I could only get it to work if I used eth0:0 instead of lo:0 for the virtual
server interface. I posted a question about the reason for usiing lo:0, but
nobody has yet responded. I'm using the latest patches on 2.2.15 kernel.
Tom Morris
CrosStor Software
Jeremy Hansen wrote:
> So I'm trying to use fwmark and I'm running into problems. I'm using the
> UltraMonkey examples and I think where I'm having the problem is with the
> 192.168.0.0/24 network example. My cluster is setup using 10.2.9.0/24.
>
> floating ip is 10.2.9.5
>
> ld1 and ld2, 10.2.9.2, and 10.2.9.3
>
> real servers
>
> web1-3, 10.2.9.10-12
>
> So I decided to use 10.2.20.0/24 in place of the 192.168.0.0/24 in the
> example.
>
> As far as I can tell I had things exactly as they instruct in the example.
>
> On real server lo:0 was config'd for 10.2.20.0
>
> ipchains was accepting all, but I did do the ipchains -A input -d
> 10.2.20.0/24 -m 1 and added the route for 10.2.20.0/24 to gateway via the
> vip, 10.2.9.5.
>
> and ipvsadm used ipvsadm -A -f 1 vip1:80 and ipvsadm -a -f -1 -r
> webtest1:80, etc.
>
> so did all this and it did not work...so the only thing looking fishy to
> me is my use of 10.2.20.0/24. Any ideas what I could be overlooking?
>
> Also is there any real performance advantages to using fwmark? I guess
> the cool thing is it easily allows me to use other services, right?
>
> Thanks
> -jeremy
>
|
