|
On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 13:14 +0100, bgs wrote:
> What can be the difference? In my setup moving vrrp to a physical eth
> device solved the bind error.
As I would expect.
> Might be a bonding driver difference? What do you use?
I've used the bond device before with no errors, but I wasn't using the
load-balancing option on the bond interface. My issue was failover
(spanning tree), so I had dual-homed the servers at layer 2 and made
their "left hand" port the active part of the bond interface. Rebooting
the switch they all connected to (or pulling its' power) made everything
go out the "right hand" port instead.
Interestingly, the hash mode you use is documented as follows:
This algorithm is not fully 802.3ad compliant. A
single TCP or UDP conversation containing both
fragmented and unfragmented packets will see packets
striped across two interfaces. This may result in out
of order delivery. Most traffic types will not meet
this criteria, as TCP rarely fragments traffic, and
most UDP traffic is not involved in extended
conversations. Other implementations of 802.3ad may
or may not tolerate this noncompliance.
I wonder if this is the cause of your problem? The key exchange could
well result in TCP fragments, especially if you're using a large key.
Try changing that to "layer2", and try changing the bond mode to
"active-backup", just to see if it makes a difference.
Graeme
|
