Linux - NetworkingThis forum is for any issue related to networks or networking.
Routing, network cards, OSI, etc. Anything is fair game.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
SDN 101: An Introduction to Software Defined Networking
Discover the advantages of SDN.
SDN has quickly become one of the hottest trends in IT. But not all SDN solutions offer real software-defined functionality. As more enterprises consider SDN, they want to know, “What is SDN? And what are the real benefits?” If you're ready to explore the advantages of SDN, and want to know how it should be implemented within your enterprise, start by reading our introductory white paper.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
I have four servers in a configuration similar to http://www.ultramonkey.org/3/topolog...-ha-lb-eg.html set up, and I believe all is set right. However, when I go to the virtual IP instead of getting the site I expect to see I eventually get a "Cannot find server" (IE) or a neverending "Connecting..." with FireFox. I disabled all firewalls to make sure they weren't the problem, and it was still a no-go. It seems to me like this is what should happen, as requests to the virtual IP are directed to the master server by the switch, and they aren't sent anywhere else. I think that theory is backed up by the fact that arptables prevents the virtual IP from being advertised on the actual servers. My question is, is that theory correct, or is something wrong with my configuration? I will admit that I haven't fully researched the way this configuration is meant to function, but my theory makes sense to me, and I don't understand how it could possibly be advantageous to run this configuration if I had to substitute hubbing for switching. Assuming that my theory is correct, is there anything I can do about it (Cisco 3750G)? Assuming that it is possible to run this configuration, what might I be doing wrong? (arptables -nLv, ip addr sh eth0, ipvsadm -nL, /etc/ha.d/resource.d/LVSSyncDaemonSwap master status, and ip addr sh lo0 all show the expected output on their relative servers). Any help appreciated.
Well, I kept reading and now I understand why my theory is wrong. However, I still don't understand why the site I have configured isn't coming up. I tested failover between Linux Directors and Real Serers as well. Everything functioned as expected except the site doesn't load. The site loads fine when I point directly at one of the Real Servers by name or IP. I'm going to shout down iptables again and scour the config again, but I'm getting nowhere thus far.
we have had a problem (but this was for a pool of DNS servers instead of a pool of web server).
Have you configured the http server so that the IP address for the answer (route back to the client) is the routeur?
Actually, I got it working. This was some time ago & I don't remebber how. Those server have since been reused for something else,and I don't currently have anything runnig LVS. However, I had a couple other problems I don't think sI ever posted anythere. One was that I couldn't make one LVS server primary for one cluster & another LVS server primary for another cluster, (so one server handeled all the load & the other was only standby). I should think that would be doable, but I don't know, and I can't provide any configs to exemplify my attempts that didn't lead to succes. I would like to know, though, whether or not I should be able to do that. It might be important to note that restarting the servers 0ead to perfect failover every time, but once the primary server kernel panicked, and the other didn't take over, ever again (I didn't really do much to troubleshoot this, since it was testing & I had begun to fucos on other things).