|
On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 19:02, Roberto Nibali wrote:
> > I made this config with ipvsadm himself and not with keepalived, because
> > i would disable the vrrp. And at the moment, it seems, that the error
> > will occur 10 times under befor.
>
> I'm sorry, I do not understand "... it seems, that the error will occur
> 10 times under befor". What do you mean?
I am running tcpdump on each nic. Every 300000 packets tcpdump make an
new file. Then i count the icmp messages ( Destination Port unreachable
) in this file. With vrrpd there where approximate 0.2 % of errors,
without vrrpd approximate 0.02%.
> Could you increase the verbosity of vs_debug and capture the log
> statements during such an event, please? Obviously your RS' service is
> down or someone is standing on the network cable :).
Stupid question, but who can i increase the debuging? The
kernelparameter /proc/sys/net/ipv4/vs/debug_level make no different.
> > 23:10:37.492264 80.240.228.28 > 224.0.0.18: VRRPv2-advertise 28: vrid=17
> > prio=150 intvl=1 [tos 0xc0]
>
> I thought, you disabled keepalived?
>
This entries are from the firewall. They also work with vrrp. But we use
diffrent id's.
> > Currently i am seeking an other NIC like 3COM, because i am not sure
> > about intel cards working correctly.
>
> The Intel NICs should be working fine with 2.4.21 (that's what you used,
> IIRC) as long as you use the eepro100 driver provided by Intel.
>
I tried it also with an 3COM card, but the result is the same.
> > Here my Values under /proc/sys/net/ipv4/vs
> > *** am_droprate ***
> > 10
> > *** amemthresh ***
> > 1024
> > *** cache_bypass ***
> > 0
> > *** debug_level ***
> > 1
>
> Do you spot anything unusual in your kernlog/messages file?
Unfortunatly not!
Thank your, Rainer
|
