On Jun 13, 2010, at 10:18 AM, Michael Schwartzkopff wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 13. Juni 2010 15:07:36 schrieb Vadym Chepkov:
> (...)
>> The whole point of my posting was: it does not get the same IP, not sure
>> how you missed it. If you took a look into
>> /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d/heartbeat/IPaddr2, you would see
>>
>> case "$OCF_RESKEY_unique_clone_address" in
>> true|TRUE|True|yes|YES|Yes|1)
>> prefix=`echo $OCF_RESKEY_ip | awk -F. '{print $1"."$2"."$3}'`
>> suffix=`echo $OCF_RESKEY_ip | awk -F. '{print $4}'`
>> suffix=`expr ${OCF_RESKEY_CRM_meta_clone:-0} + $suffix`
>> OCF_RESKEY_ip="$prefix.$suffix"
>> ;;
>> *) ;;
>> esac
>>
>> And again, my posting clearly showed configured ip 10.10.10.22 versus
>> assigned - 10.10.10.23.
>
> I see.
>
> What happens if you remove the unique_clone_address attribute or set it to
> false?
then, of cause, it will be the same everywhere and iptables rules need to be
applied.
>
> Indeed it should not use the CLUSTERIP target if unique_clone_address="true"
> and create instead a set of consecutive IP addresses in the nodes. I did not
> know about this feature.
>
> If it does not work, it seems to be a bug.
It doesn't
Vadym
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
