|
(Apologies if you see this more than once - it didn't seem to make it to
the list.)
>From the pain-and-suffering-with-multiple-nics department:
I'm putting together a server farm, with heartbeat, lvs, mon, and a few
other goodies. In order to reduce the problems caused by having a hub
die, I've put two NICs in each server (both directors and realservers),
and connected card 0 to one hub, and card 1 to another.
Then, thinking that all is well, I wrote a script for mon (which is
running on the directors) to test network connectivity by pinging all
the relevant IPs via the two net cards in each director; in more detail,
I ping the 2 IPs in for each director and each realserver via each
device in the director.
The problem I have found (and I'm not sure whether heartbeat/lvs is
responsible or not) is that this doesn't work. To illustrate (using the
actual IP addresses on director 1):
director1:
eth0: 192.168.1.131
eth1: 192.168.100.131 <-- only used for heartbeat vi crossover cable
eth2: 192.168.1.133
realserver1:
eth0: 192.168.1.141
eth1: 192.168.1.143
If I (from director1) do the following:
ping -c 1 -I eth0 192.168.1.133 or
ping -c 1 -I eth2 192.168.1.131
then I get no response. Similarly, if I ping (from the director) either
of the realserver addresses with the cable to eth0 (on the realserver)
unplugged, then I get no response, but if that cable is plugged in and
the eth1 cable is removed, I can ping both of them.
Here's the routing table on the director, just in case that helps any:
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Iface
192.168.1.133 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH eth2
192.168.1.131 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH eth0
192.168.100.131 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH eth1
192.168.1.169 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH eth0
192.168.100.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U eth1
192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U eth0
192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U eth2
127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U lo
0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG eth2
0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG eth0
I'm kinda stumped here; any help at all would be appreciated!
Cheers, Chris.
mailto:chris.anderson@xxxxxxxxxx
--
"Personally, I am of the Opinion that The Bible(tm) has historical
value only slightly greater than The Silmarillion. But, that's
just My Opinion, and this is Usenet." -- David Eoll in ASR
|
