|
> From: Peter Mueller <pmueller@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: 'LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list.'
> <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: version number problems
> Date: 11 Jul 2003 14:03:01 -0700
>
> > I have just attempted to install ipvs-1.0.9 on an Sun Ultra 5
> > running 2.4.20. The patches installed easily and I am
> > running on the new kernel.
>
> Why not 2.4.21?
I am compiling 2.4.21 now. I was using 2.4.20 because the patch file
that I downloaded said that it was for 2.4.20 and I wanted to get it
working on 2.4.20 before moving it up to 2.4.21.
>
> > I have put in a simple test service with 3 back end servers.
> > When I telnet to the lvs service the connection hangs and
> > eventually times out.
>
> So you have LVS-NAT setup? If you have NAT, make sure the default gateway
> on the backend is the private interface of the LVS director. If you have
> LVS-DR, make sure the 'back end' servers are actually listening on the VIP.
>
> > /proc/net/ip_vs says that I have an InActive Connection and
> > no Active connections. /proc/net/ip_vs_conn says that it's
> > current state is SYN_RECV.
>
> What does tcpdump show, both on the director and on the application
> server/real server?
I have configured the LVS machine to round robin tcp 5000 to a single
machine, peter:5000. I am using a single machine on the back end so
that it is easier to watch packets.
>From LVS I can telnet peter 5000 and it works correctly.
When I telnet LVS:5000 LVS doesn't attempt to connect to peter:5000.
An ipvsadm -L shows:
Prot LocalAddress:port Scheduler Flags
-> RemoteAddress:port Forward Weight ActiveConn InActConn
TCP lvs:5000 rr
-> peter:5000 Route 1 0 0
When I telnet to lvs:5000 I see the packet stream enter lvs and
InActConn goes to 1, but lvs never sends packets out to peter:5000 and
the connection to lvs:5000 eventually times out.
/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward is set to 1.
lvs and peter are both on the same class C subnet and from lvs, I can
telnet to peter:5000 and I get the expected service and results.
I am trying to use direct routing and NOT NAT.
Can anyone think of anything else that I am missing to make this work?
This should be a simple, trivial example.
Thanks for any suggestions or help.
>
> > Is there something else that I should be doing to activate it?
>
> Maybe ip_forward=1..
>
> Peter
> ----
>
--
Daniel R. Bidwell | bidwell@xxxxxxxxxxx
Andrews University | Information Technology Services
If two always agree, one of them is unnecessary
"Friends don't let friends do DOS"
"In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, however, they are not."
|
