Terry L. Inzauro wrote:
> Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> On 4/11/07, Terry L. Inzauro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> list,
>>>
>>> this is a continuation of another thread that was started a few weeks
>>> back. the original thread was
>>> started in regards
>>> to the setup of pingd. this thread is in regards to pingd not being
>>> able to start for whatever
>>> reason and i suspect my resource
>>> groups are not starting as a result ;(
>>>
>>> a little background:
>>>
>>> - two resource groups are defined. i want to split the two resource
>>> groups between nodes when both
>>> nodes are online. if both
>>> nodes are not online, then obviously, fail the resource resource group
>>> to the other available node.
>>> - pingd configuration was previously verified correct by Alan R.
>>> - crm_verify passes
>>> - BasicSanityCheck 'does not pass' (fails on pingd checks)
>> pingd isn't failing...
>>
>> Apr 11 12:44:07 roxetta CTS: BadNews: heartbeat[13770]:
>> 2007/04/11_12:44:05 ERROR: glib: Error sending packet: Operation not
>> permitted
>> Apr 11 12:44:07 roxetta CTS: BadNews: heartbeat[13770]:
>> 2007/04/11_12:44:05 ERROR: write failure on ping 127.0.0.1.: Operation
>> not permitted
>>
>> these messages are from the heartbeat communications layer - and if
>> thats not working, then pingd has no hope at all.
>>
>> i have no idea why pinging localhost should fail - firewall?
>>
>>> - without pingd, the resource groups function as expected
>>> - heartbeat has been restarted
>>> - heartbeat hangs on stopping so i do the following ;)
>>> for i in `ps -ef | grep heart | awk '{print $2}'`; do kill
>>> $i; done
>>>
>>> i have noticed log entries in the log file that are obviously related
>>> to pingd. this however 'may'
>>> not be the case.
>>> would anyone be interested in lending a hand?
>>>
>>> heartbeat version = 2.0.8-r2
>>> OS = gentoo 2006.1
>>> kernel = 2.6.18 (i have tested both hardened<with grsecurity and pax>
>>> as well as generic)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> cibadmin -Q output , ptest output, BasicSanityCheck output and
>>> messages file are all attached as a
>>> .tar.bz2.
>>>
>>>
>>> believe me when i tell you that i am stumped. any assistance is
>>> greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _Terry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Linux-HA mailing list
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
>>> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
>>>
>>>
>
> no firewall. i tested with and without iptables. in fact i even unloaded ALL
> iptables modules just
> to be certain. so then i thought to myself. pax? perhaps grsecurity? no
> luck there either. i
> rebuild a kernel without all of the grsec and pax hooks. no luck.
>
>
>
> destiny crm # lsmod
> Module Size Used by
> softdog 4752 0
> tun 9184 0
> e100 28360 0
> sym53c8xx 64820 0
> eepro100 25552 0
> scsi_transport_spi 18752 1 sym53c8xx
>
> destiny crm # ping 127.0.0.1
> PING 127.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
> 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.097 ms
> 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.054 ms
>
> --- 127.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
> 2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1002ms
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.054/0.075/0.097/0.023 ms
>
>
> so i re-ran BasicSAanityCheck....same result. any ideas?
Here is something to run and check...
ifconfig lo;ip addr show lo; route;ip route show
Here's what it produces on my machine:
lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
RX packets:520006 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:520006 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:190990507 (182.1 Mb) TX bytes:190990507 (182.1 Mb)
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue
link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
inet6 ::1/128 scope host
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use
Iface
10.10.10.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1
link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth1
loopback * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
default gw 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1
10.10.10.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 10.10.10.5
169.254.0.0/16 dev eth1 scope link
127.0.0.0/8 dev lo scope link
default via 10.10.10.254 dev eth1
I don't know what I'm looking for to be different, but it's at least
somewhere to start...
--
Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Openness is the foundation and preservative of friendship... Let me
claim from you at all times your undisguised opinions." - William
Wilberforce
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
