From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 27 14:55:40 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D772616A403 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:55:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Ross.Draper@gcapmedia.com) Received: from cluster-b.mailcontrol.com (cluster-b.mailcontrol.com [217.68.146.190]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5D6A13C489 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:55:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Ross.Draper@gcapmedia.com) Received: from rly05b.srv.mailcontrol.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rly05b.srv.mailcontrol.com (MailControl) with ESMTP id l2REtXdY009144 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:55:34 +0100 Received: from submission.mailcontrol.com (submission.mailcontrol.com [86.111.216.190]) by rly05b.srv.mailcontrol.com (MailControl) id l2REt8vV007929 for freebsd-net@freebsd.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:55:08 +0100 Received: from lqm4.gcapmedia.com (no-dns-yet.demon.co.uk [194.70.58.205]) by rly05b-eth0.srv.mailcontrol.com (envelope-sender Ross.Draper@gcapmedia.com) (MIMEDefang) with ESMTP id l2REsTA4005829; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:55:08 +0100 (BST) Received: from LQEVS1.gcapmedia.com ([10.73.2.12]) by lqm4.gcapmedia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:53:00 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:52:59 +0100 Message-ID: <3DDDCC38D00FA545A6C012475EF2DC0302AF8FD5@LQEVS1.gcapmedia.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Vrrp/CARP/ucarp Problems Thread-Index: AcdwfyBjSvCZRzrFTeusf4w4qjeP2gAABAkQ From: "Ross Draper" To: "Jordan Gordeev" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2007 14:53:00.0904 (UTC) FILETIME=[9D81DE80:01C7707F] X-Scanned-By: MailControl A-07-06-85 (www.mailcontrol.com) on 10.66.1.115 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Vrrp/CARP/ucarp Problems X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:55:41 -0000 Ah... I see your point, thankyou for clarifying. =20 =20 Sorry, this is down to me only explaining half the story. The actual loadbalancing will be performed by HAProxy, I require carp or freevrrp to enable "a clustered pair" of loadbalancers.=20 =20 I did toy with the idea arp balancing to enable greater throughput in an active/active scenario, but as you say mention this is not suitable for certain deployments. =20 Kind Regards =20 Ross ________________________________ From: Jordan Gordeev [mailto:jgordeev@dir.bg]=20 Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:47 PM To: Ross Draper Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Vrrp/CARP/ucarp Problems The only load balancing that CARP supports, to my knowledge, is ARP level load balancing. From carp(4): The ARP load balancing has some limitations. First, ARP balancing only works on the local network segment. It cannot balance traffic that crosses a router, because the router itself will always be balanced to the same virtual host. Ross Draper wrote:=20 Hi =09 Firstly, many thanks to Stefan (who provided me a diff of the CURRENT update) and Bruce for advising me that the "multiple CARP interface destroy" bug is fixed in CURRENT. =09 Jordan, thanks for your reply, but I cant find a reference to CARP being unsuitable for this purpose in the CARP man page, have I perhaps misunderstood you? I also did a quick search of the freebsd.org site and cant find any mention of it being an issue - If you could provide me with a link I'd be grateful. =09 Further to this, I have been in the office today performing local testing as opposed to remote testing and have noticed that when both machines in the cluster are using xl network cards, failover etc seems fine. However, when having one node using xl and the other using em/bge I can see the em or bge card physically go down after it reverts to backup mode, then come back up and goto master. (this wasnt displaying in the messages log, but was obvious on the console). I believe that this down period is sufficient for it to miss the remaining advertisements and believe it is the master again. For some reason it doesnt seem to ever remove the mac address or recover after this point, but I'm not particularly suprised. Not sure how to take this further, but I'll continue fiddling. =09 Many thanks =09 Ross =09 =09 =09 All correspondence, attachments and agreements remain strictly subject to fully executed contract. (c) GCap Media plc 2006. All rights remain reserved. This e-mail (and any attachments) contains information which may be confidential, subject to intellectual property protection and may be legally privileged and protected from disclosure and unauthorised use. It is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is addressed and others specifically authorised to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail or any parts of it please telephone 020 7054 8000 immediately upon receipt. No other person is authorised to copy, adapt, forward, disclose, distribute or retain this e-mail in any form without prior specific permission in writing from an authorised representative of GCap Media plc. We will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of the internet to transmit information by or to GCap Media plc. GCap Media plc. Registered address: 30 Leicester Square, London WC2H 7LA. Registered in England & Wales with No. 923454