Tobias Klausmann wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, 05 Jul 2007, Gerry Reno wrote: > >> Tobias Klausmann wrote: >> >>> We're currently using keepalived and vanilla 2.6 kernels (which >>> already have LVS, so no patching needed). We're also looking into >>> ldirectord since keepalived has given us some trouble. >>> >>> >> Tobias, >> Are you still having the same catatonic problem? Or is this something new? >> > > It's similar, yet different. > > First, it seems it's no longer triggered by config reloads but > "just happens". Also, it happens very infrequently, maybe once a > month, probably even less often - that is, over the five[0] > productive and one test LBs, so statistically, it probably > happens once or twice a year on a single LB. > Infrequent, spurious problems are tough.
> [0] We have 10+1 servers, five pairs with one productivem one > standby plus one testing server. The way we switch things, a > catatonic test server will pretty much go unnoticed. > > As such, it's pretty much impossible to reproduce. The symptoms > are slightly different, to: keepalived *looks* okay, but it just > doesn't see when a server disappears. Also, it eventually starts > ignoring HUP completely. It's not completely frozen though: it > keeps doing checks. > How do you detect the condition? Are you monitoring keepalived somehow? What actions are necessary to recover? > Another odd thing I've witnessed: if you tell keepalived to bind > to an IP (for the checks) that is'nt configured, it will complain > a bit but still continue trying - and leaving everything > inservice. I think it should either complain more loudly or take > everything out of service as not being able to check is about the > same as everything being down. > Have you discussed this with keepalived team? > Regards, > Tobias > > _______________________________________________ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - [email protected] Send requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
