|
>>>>> Apon upgrading to 2.6.29.6 from 2.6.22 and recompiling ipvsadm 1.25 to
>>>>> get ipv6 support I'm getting the following error:
>>>>>
>>>>> Invalid operation. Possibly wrong module version, address not unicast,
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> when running ...
>>>>>
>>>>> ipvsadm -ln -t SERVICE_HERE
>>>>>
>>>>> There is absolutely nothing else that changed apart from the kernel and
>>>>> recompile of 1.25.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everything seems to work fine, ipvsadm -ln works fine, setting up
>>>>> services works fine as does all functionality except the above.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can anyone shed some light?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Hi Nigel,
>>>>
>>>> I'm not having any luck reproducing this problem.
>>>> Is sane output produced when you run "ipvsadm -ln" ?
>>>> Could you be more specific about what SERVICE_HERE is,
>>>> and if it includes a host name if it resolves to an ipv4
>>>> or ipv6 address, or both?
>>>>
>>>> Also, is the 2.6.29.6 vanilla, or has it had some patches added?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 2.6.29.6 vanilla
>>>
>>> The problem above was due to some CFLAGS being set in the environment,
>>> namely "-O2 --march=pentium-mmx". Without the env being set, there are
>>> no more errors. I did a total rm -rf sources and recompile.
>>>
>>> Which brings me to another problem now... my ipvsadm -ln is not
>>> displaying the current number of connections. I've copied the same
>>> binary over to 2.6.29.5 and its working. Using the binary on 2.6.29.6
>>> seems to just give zero's. Also statement in the original post was
>>> incorrect, -ln did work, but also didn't display the number of connections.
>>>
>>> # ipvsadm -v
>>> ipvsadm v1.25 2008/5/15 (compiled with popt and IPVS v1.2.1)
>>>
>>> # ipvsadm -ln -t a.b.c.d:25
>>> Prot LocalAddress:Port Scheduler Flags
>>> -> RemoteAddress:Port Forward Weight ActiveConn InActConn
>>> TCP a.b.c.d:25 wlc
>>> -> 10.0.200.131:25 Masq 240 0 75
>>> -> 10.0.200.141:25 Masq 239 0 69
>>> -> 10.0.200.151:25 Masq 238 0 69
>>> -> 10.0.200.161:25 Masq 239 0 67
>>>
>>> # ipvsadm -ln -t a.b.c.d:25 --stats
>>> Prot LocalAddress:Port Conns InPkts OutPkts InBytes
>>> OutBytes
>>> -> RemoteAddress:Port
>>> TCP a.b.c.d:25 1516 37220 32114 31690896 1836300
>>> -> 10.0.200.131:25 404 13002 10258 10433390
>>> 556410
>>> -> 10.0.200.141:25 360 7119 6485 5986697
>>> 392303
>>> -> 10.0.200.151:25 390 9374 8454 8919481
>>> 485851
>>> -> 10.0.200.161:25 362 7726 6918 6351400
>>> 401884
>>>
>>> # ipvsadm -ln -t a.b.c.d:25 --rate
>>> Prot LocalAddress:Port CPS InPPS OutPPS InBPS
>>> OutBPS
>>> -> RemoteAddress:Port
>>> TCP a.b.c.d:25 6 96 92 69714 5619
>>> -> 10.0.200.131:25 1 14 16
>>> 3177 1108
>>> -> 10.0.200.141:25 2 38 32
>>> 30077 1911
>>> -> 10.0.200.151:25 1 21 21
>>> 14418 1274
>>> -> 10.0.200.161:25 1 24 23
>>> 22041 1325
>>>
>>> # ipvsadm -ln -c | grep ESTABLISHED | wc -l
>>> 65
>>>
>>>
>> Ok ... I found the problem.
>>
>> * My scripts overrode CFLAGS= which is why it worked before, -D for NL
>> was being forcefully removed.
>> * I fixed this a few weeks ago, when upgrading .. same time I upgraded
>> my kernel, appears that libnl is now used.
>> * Below ...
>>
>> make HAVE_NL=0 POPT_LIB="-lpopt" <= that works fine, I get the correct
>> listing below...
>> TCP a.b.c.d:25 wlc
>> -> 10.0.200.131:25 Masq 238 14 47
>> -> 10.0.200.141:25 Masq 241 14 36
>> -> 10.0.200.151:25 Masq 242 10 109
>> -> 10.0.200.161:25 Masq 242 13 90
>>
>> make POPT_LIB="-lpopt" <= that gives wrong details for ActiveConn, below ...
>> TCP a.b.c.d:25 wlc
>> -> 10.0.200.131:25 Masq 240 0 31
>> -> 10.0.200.141:25 Masq 240 0 34
>> -> 10.0.200.151:25 Masq 241 0 94
>> -> 10.0.200.161:25 Masq 238 0 87
>>
>> Same results on all kernel versions & servers I've tried.
>>
>> My problem is that using HAVE_NL=0 seems not to work with v6 support...
>> /tmp/ipvsadm.no-nl -A -t [fc00::10]:25 -s rr
>> Operation not supported with specified address family
>>
> That bit is expected, the NL support was added specifically
> because the non-NL support couldn't be expanded to handle ipv6.
> So as you need ipv6 you also need NL. And curiously that seems
> to result in the connection count being bogus.
>
> Would it be possible for you to test this against a newer kernel - say
> 2.6.32 or 2.6.33-rc4. It would be good to know if the problem is
> still present.
I can with no doubt confirm the problem is still present from 2.6.22 up
to 2.6.33-rc5. I now have a test network setup especially for this.
Regards
Nigel
_______________________________________________
Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
|
