|
Hi
I'm experiencing issues with port translation using LVS-NAT and FWMARK:
iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -d VIP -p tcp -m tcp --syn --dport
1237:1239 -j MARK --set-mark 1238
ipvsadm -A -f 1238 -s wlc -p 900
ipvsadm -a -f 1238 -r 192.168.20.1:1237 -m -w 5 # daemon instance 1
ipvsadm -a -f 1238 -r 192.168.20.1:1238 -m -w 5 # daemon instance 2
What I am trying to achieve is the following:
we have a custom written SMPP service that accepts two connection
(transmitter and receiver) from a client. We have run into problems
with maximum threads per process and large numbers of binds. As an
interim measure we are considering running multiple instances of the
daemon on the same server. Its is imperative that a user's two binds
are routed to the same daemon instance. The user may connect to a
port range so as to allow them to specify different receiver and
transmitter ports according to their whim or the peculiarities of
their client software but the daemon instance will handle both
connections on the same port.
The intention is to group the VIP port range using FWMARK as we do
with many other services and load balance them across the RIP service
ports ensuring that:
userIP:56789 -> VIP:1237 -> RIP:n
userIP:56790 -> VIP:1238 -> RIP:n
where n is the same port guaranteed by persistence.
Problem: FWMARK and LVS-NAT port translation does not seem to work at
all. what actually happens is:
userIP:56789 -> VIP:1237 -> RIP:1237
userIP:56790 -> VIP:1238 -> RIP:1238
which splits the binds across daemon instances.
Another approach to the problem is to configure multiple virtual
interfaces on my real server, get the daemon instances to bind to
specific IPs/same port ranges and handle as per normal i.e. no port
translation:
iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -d VIP -p tcp -m tcp --syn --dport
1237:1239 -j MARK --set-mark 1238
ipvsadm -A -f 1238 -s wlc -p 900
ipvsadm -a -f 1238 -r 192.168.20.11:0 -m -w 5 # daemon instance 1
listening on 1237 - 1239
ipvsadm -a -f 1238 -r 192.168.20.12:0 -m -w 5 # daemon instance 2
listening on 1237 - 1239
However I would prefer to keep down the number of IPs I need to failover.
Any suggestions ?
Nick
| 