LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: IPVS 0.2 crash with SMP kernels (was: ipvs-0.8.0 available)

To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: IPVS 0.2 crash with SMP kernels (was: ipvs-0.8.0 available)
From: Radu-Adrian Feurdean <raf@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 17:38:30 +0200 (CEST)
On Wed, 9 May 2001, Julian Anastasov wrote:

> 
>       Hello,
> 
> On Wed, 9 May 2001, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote:
> 
> > >   What is the evidence this is a LVS problem? Any crash report?
> > > Is Netfilter running on the same box?
> >
> > We're not 100% sure it's ipvs causing the problem. We have on identical
> > hardware configurations 2.4.2 running packet filtering, apache and a
> > mutant of SuSe ftp-proxy and they are running fine, even at high traffic.
> > The ipvs director only runs packet filtering and ipvs, and at high traffic
> > crashes after a few hours.
> >
> > No crash-logs (they don't arrive to syslog), however, there's plenty of:
> >
> > IPVS: did not set timer with refcnt=2, called from e0946f84
> 
>       You are using 0.2.7 or below. Please, upgrade! In 0.2.12 or
> 0.8.0 you should report other kind of problems. This message does not
> already exist.

8 hours, 2 kernel+ipvs upgrades and about 10000 lines of kernel logs after,
not so often in the logs (still plenty of):

kernel: IPVS: Incoming failed TCP checksum from bla.bla.bla.bla (size=20)!

and

kernel: IPVS: mess proto_doff for proto=6, size =20
kernel: IPVS: I-pkt invalid packet data size

2.4.2+ipvs_0.2.6, 2.4.2+ipvs_0.2.7, 2.4.3+ipvs_0.2.8, 2.4.4+ipvs_0.2.11
All these combinations (SMP based) crashed in less than 8 hours of high
traffic. 2.4.2+0.2.7 resisted over a week-end at low traffic (~2.5 Mbps)

> 
> > (address varies). Turning off debugging in ipvs at compile-time didn't help.
> >
> > And yes, there is netfilter (aka firewall + MASQUERADE) on the same box.
> > (here are some other minor problems, like packets - all of them - that don't
> > pass through chain OUTPUT, table mangle).
> 
>       The LVS packets? Is this expected behavior? What is shown
> in the Netfilter docs? Do you use the Netfilter's IPFW compat code?

Both LVS and MASQUERADE packets. It is not the expected behavior and I haven't
found something related in netfilter docs (well, I didn't search very much).

I used only iptables (ipchains and ipfwadm compat isn't even compiled, not
even as module)



Radu-Adrian Feurdean
mailto: raf@xxxxxxxx
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"If the night is silent enough you can hear a Windows NT rebooting"



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