Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:53:55 +0200 From: Marko Lerota <mlerota@iskon.hr> To: Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org> Cc: FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: carp0 interface goes down on 6.2-PRERELEASE Message-ID: <8664epxi0s.fsf@sparrow.local> In-Reply-To: <86mz81xj3q.fsf@sparrow.local> (Marko Lerota's message of "Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:30:33 %2B0200") References: <452E2151.80500@suutari.iki.fi> <86hcy9zc1h.fsf@sparrow.local> <3FE17199-C351-4C29-AC36-7A94F344C135@khera.org> <86mz81xj3q.fsf@sparrow.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Marko Lerota <mlerota@iskon.hr> writes:
>> Shouldn't it then move to MASTER since the other server could
>> possibly be dead?
>
> Yes, but if interface had _never_ received any pfsync packet,
> and sysctl is set to net.inet.carp.preempt=0 ?
> Maybe it's because of that. Don't know really. Documentation for
> this is not so good. Someone who knows this code and how this really
> works, should write handbook like documentation. Clusters are
> always complex, and for that, docs should be *very* detailed.
> If someone does that, I'll buy him a beer.
I meant:
Maybe first they have to talk to each other and say:
"OK, I will be the master first, and you wait. And if I don't send
you any more sync packets, then you should be in charge :)"
If they didn't agree on that, and don't know about each other, that
should be the INIT state. Thats the only reasonable thing that I could
think of, because there is no such INIT state in documentation !!!!@#!@#!@
--
One cannot sell the earth upon which the people walk
Tacunka Witco
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8664epxi0s.fsf>