LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: Large HTTP Uploads timeout

To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jcoby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Large HTTP Uploads timeout
From: Joseph Mack <mack.joseph@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:37:37 -0500
Jacob Coby wrote:
> 

> > no, from a regular eth0 to a tunl on another machine.
> 
> How exactly do you do that?

set up tunl0 on the realserver with a unique IP, then
ping that IP from another machine.
 
> > what ping are you using? My ping doesn't have the -I option.
> > hping has it. I can't figure out where I got my original ping
> > from, to go find the latest code.
> 
> [root@delta root]# ping -V
> ping utility, iputils-ss020124

couldn't remember that for the life of me. 
thanks


> I don't quite understand what you're saying here.  How do I ping the tunl
> device on the realserver from the director?

as above, except that the realserver has the VIP hidden on tunl0:110
and the director (the machine I'm pinging from)
has the VIP (on ethx). I just down the VIP on the director.
 
> > "physical layer header size unknown"
> 
> What exactly does that tell us? 

I assume hping can't find the tunl0:110 device.

> ping doesn't complain, and the icmp request
> packets make it out.

will try with the new ping.

> Ok, I just did another test with three computers:
> 
> Realserver (RS)
> Director (D)
> and a Third Server (TS)
> 
> RS: ping from VIP to TS
> TS registers ping request, replies to VIP
> D registers ICMP response
> 
> So the reason ping isn't working is simply because the system is working as
> designed.

is what you're saying that the ping request went RS->TS, reply went TS->D?
 
> However, I just tried doing a large post and left tcpdump watching ICMP
> packets on the director, and saw this:
> 
> 11:41:42.939666 www.listingbook.com > ws4.listingbook.com: icmp:
> www.listingbook.com unreachable - need to frag (mtu 1480) [tos 0xc0]
> 
> So, something is preventing packets from being able to fragment.

do you have "always reassemble" or something like that (I think it's
in the kernel config)?

> I think it's ipchains.

you aren't running ipchains with 2.4.x?

http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/Joseph.Mack/mini-HOWTO/LVS-mini-HOWTO.html#DIY

look at section 
3.6.4. iptables/ipchains compatability problems

Joe

-- 
Joseph Mack PhD, Senior Systems Engineer, SAIC contractor 
to the National Environmental Supercomputer Center, 
ph# 919-541-0007, RTP, NC, USA. mailto:mack.joseph@xxxxxxx


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