Hi! Thanks! Now I see it, too! The Netmaks is somewhat unusual. Still I'd like to see a warning/error message like "couldn't locate corresponding interface for 172.20.0.0, using 127.0.0.1" when corosync starts up. Silently defaulting to 127.0.0.1 isn't much helpful.
Regardsm Ulrich >>> Bruno MACADRE <[email protected]> schrieb am 13.08.2012 um 10:10 in Nachricht <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > It's totaly normal 'cause your bindnetaddr doesn't correspond to any > interface. I explain : > > The bindnetaddr parameter must contain a vlid network address (not IP > address of the server but IP address of the network). > > On your server you've got 4 ethernet interfaces with their respective > network adresse : > eth0 => IP: 172.20.3.X NetIP: 172.20.3.0 Bcast: 172.20.3.63 > eth1 => IP: 172.20.76.X NetIP: 172.20.76.0 Bcast: 172.20.76.255 > eth2 => IP: 172.20.77.X NetIP: 172.20.77.0 Bcast: 172.20.77.255 > eth3 => IP: 192.168.0.61 NetIP: 192.168.0.0 Bcast: 192.168.0.255 > > As you can see, the only one bindnetaddr that correspond to a valid > NetIP is 192.168.0.0 so the behaviour is correct. > > If you want that corosync bind to eth0 you must replace 172.20.0.0 by > 172.20.3.0 and all would work correctly. > > Regards, > Bruno > > Le 13/08/2012 09:41, Ulrich Windl a écrit : > > Hi! > > > > I have a problem with corosync as of SLES11 SP2 (current updates): > > > > Given these routing table: > > # netstat -rn > > Kernel IP routing table > > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt > Iface > > 0.0.0.0 172.20.3.62 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 > eth0 > > 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo > > 172.20.3.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.192 U 0 0 0 > eth0 > > 172.20.76.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 > eth2 > > 172.20.77.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 > eth3 > > 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 > eth1 > > > > and this ring configuration: > > interface { > > bindnetaddr: 172.20.0.0 > > mcastaddr: 239.192.3.9 > > mcastport: 5405 > > ringnumber: 0 > > } > > interface { > > mcastaddr: 239.192.3.109 > > mcastport: 5405 > > bindnetaddr: 192.168.0.0 > > ringnumber: 1 > > } > > > > I get: > > # corosync-cfgtool -s > > Printing ring status. > > Local node ID 16777343 > > RING ID 0 > > id = 127.0.0.1 > > status = ring 0 active with no faults > > RING ID 1 > > id = 192.168.0.61 > > status = ring 1 active with no faults > > > > So why isn't corosync using eth0 as interface? for ring 0? In this > configuration nodes cannot join the cluster. I couldn't find any error or > warning during initial startup regarding the choice of the network > address/interface. I guess there's a bug in it. > > corosync-1.4.1-0.13.1 > > pacemaker-1.1.6-1.29.1 > > > > Regards, > > Ulrich > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Linux-HA mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha > > See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems > > > _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
