>>> Lars Marowsky-Bree <l...@suse.com> schrieb am 28.01.2015 um 17:03 in
Nachricht
<20150128160342.gg1...@suse.de>:
> On 2015-01-28T16:44:34, Ulrich Windl <ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
wrote:
>
>> > address actually is 172.20.16.5.
>> >> But I see another node ID of 739512325 (hex 2C141005) which is
> "44.20.16.5".
>> > That seems revered compared to the above, and the 0x2c doesn't fit
> anywhere.
>> >
>> > It does. The highbit was stripped.
>>
>> So the logic is "If the hight-bit is not stripped, the ID is the reversed
IP
> address; if the hight bit is stripped, it's the non-reversed IP address
> (without the high bit)"? Doesn't it cause problems with an IPv4 class A
> address? Now when is the high-bit stripped?
>
> Hrm. There was a bug (bnc#806634) relating to how the high bit was
> stripped, and that was fixed for SP3.
>
> Were these nodes by chance upgraded from SP2 (with not all updates
> applied) directly to SP3?
Two of the three nodes were actually updated from SP1 via SP2 to SP3, and the
third node was installed with SP3. AFAIR there was no configuration change
since SP1.
>
> Was the corosync.conf option "clear_node_high_bit" changed?
# grep -i high /etc/corosync/corosync.conf
clear_node_high_bit: new
Could this cause our problem?
Regards,
Ulrich
>
>
> Regards,
> Lars
>
> --
> Architect Storage/HA
> SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Jennifer Guild, Dilip
> Upmanyu, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
> "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-HA mailing list
> Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org
> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
