Yeah your right, in fact I thought we had already addressed the ARP issue in our init.d scripts, however upon looking at them I see they were echoing the parameters to the location of the interfaces under a 2.4 kernel, as opposed to 2.6. I can't believe I missed that before :P
On 1/18/08, Graeme Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 18:35 +0900, kotobuki intl wrote: > > Anyhow does anyone else have this problem and ideally a fix? > > Assuming that your monitoring graphs are being taken from the > realservers themselves and not the director(s), I'd say that you have > the ARP problem. > > This means that one of your realservers has managed to tell the upstream > router that it's got the VIP. The router then bypasses the director(s) > and sends all traffic for a given VIP to the realserver directly. Your > clients see no difference - connections still work - but all traffic > being handled directly rather than via LVS. > > Have you ensured that all of your loopback aliases on the realservers > are hidden? > > http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/docs/arp.html > > You'll need to amend the instructions there accordingly. > > Graeme > > > _______________________________________________ > LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - [email protected] > Send requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users > _______________________________________________ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - [email protected] Send requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
