On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 13:14 +0100, bgs wrote: > What can be the difference? In my setup moving vrrp to a physical eth > device solved the bind error.
As I would expect. > Might be a bonding driver difference? What do you use? I've used the bond device before with no errors, but I wasn't using the load-balancing option on the bond interface. My issue was failover (spanning tree), so I had dual-homed the servers at layer 2 and made their "left hand" port the active part of the bond interface. Rebooting the switch they all connected to (or pulling its' power) made everything go out the "right hand" port instead. Interestingly, the hash mode you use is documented as follows: This algorithm is not fully 802.3ad compliant. A single TCP or UDP conversation containing both fragmented and unfragmented packets will see packets striped across two interfaces. This may result in out of order delivery. Most traffic types will not meet this criteria, as TCP rarely fragments traffic, and most UDP traffic is not involved in extended conversations. Other implementations of 802.3ad may or may not tolerate this noncompliance. I wonder if this is the cause of your problem? The key exchange could well result in TCP fragments, especially if you're using a large key. Try changing that to "layer2", and try changing the bond mode to "active-backup", just to see if it makes a difference. Graeme _______________________________________________ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - [email protected] Send requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
