Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 13:48:32 +0300 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: Ari Suutari <ari.suutari@syncrontech.com> Cc: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/104377: [carp] [patch] CARP interface doesn't go up on VmWare Message-ID: <20061205104832.GD32700@cell.sick.ru> In-Reply-To: <100a01c71858$64b1efc0$6602a8c0@sad.syncrontech.com> References: <200612041538.kB4FcQjk073583@freefall.freebsd.org> <0eaa01c71835$f12055f0$6602a8c0@sad.syncrontech.com> <20061205100407.GB32700@cell.sick.ru> <100a01c71858$64b1efc0$6602a8c0@sad.syncrontech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 12:30:27PM +0200, Ari Suutari wrote: A> >A> OK, what would then be the right fix to get things working A> >A> under vmware ? I run a bunch of servers here and some of A> >A> them are redundant pairs. We have some pressure to virtualize A> >A> those servers, but we cannot do it as the carp does not work. A> >A> A> >A> I don't really get it why the link state is so important here, as A> >A> to my understanding carp works in similar as vrrp, using A> >A> heartbeats ? Also, the current state of matters is more confusing, A> >A> since you can get the carp interface up by issuing another A> >A> "ifconfig up" (people suggested this to me, but I cannot accept A> >A> that a system providing redundancy requires this kind of kludgery) A> >A> A> >A> I can accept that my solution is not the correct one, but A> >A> it is a little hard to accept turning it down without A> >A> giving any suggestion how to really fix things. A> > A> >When one created a redundant routers, he enables CARP an all A> >interfaces of the router. Imagine, that one interface goes down, A> >but CARP doesn't notice that and keeps claiming to be the master A> >on the other interfaces. Traffic comes to it, and it sends it to A> >downed interface. A> A> Doesn't the other machine notice this from the absense of hearbeat A> on that interface ? I thought that this could combined with A> net.inet.carp.preempt sysctl to force carp to fail over the A> other interfaces in this case also. If this doesn't work then you A> are right; I really didn't test this under vmware (I should A> have tested it, of course). Yes, it will notice this and claim mastering on the downed net. However it will fail to get mastering on the other nets. A> >If interface, that went down, had reported its state then CARP A> >would had noticed that and would had lowered its priority, A> >gave up mastering, and became backup. This will be redundant. A> A> Is it impossible to add link state reporting to lnc driver ? A> I think this would be the perfect fix and acceptable by A> everyone. You are 100% right :) -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061205104832.GD32700>