[Lxc-users] multi-homed host
Shouldn't I be able to have two different nics on a host, on two different, unrelated, public networks, and have two bridge devices on the host, and some containers on one bridge and some containers on the other bridge, and have all containers be able to talk to their respective internet connections regardless which nic happens to be the default gateway fro the host? Host setup: eth0 - 10.0.0.x - lan with other 10.0.0.x machines eth1 - br0 - a.a.a.x - public wan 1 , cable modem eth2 - br1 - b.b.b.x - public wan 2 , fios ip forwarding is enabled eth0 lan works fine. The host talks to other 10.0.0.x boxes via this with no problem. eth1/br0 works fine. The hosts's default gateway is a.a.a.1 The host talks to the internet vice/versa just fine via this. eth2/br1 works fine from the hosts point of view. other b.b.b.x machines are reached directly via this, not routing over eth1/br0. Containers: Containers with a.a.a.x ip's work fully and as expected. They can reach the internet and the internet can reach them. These containers have a.a.a.x ips and their default gw is a.a.a.1 Containers with b.b.b.x addresses do not work fully. These have b.b.b.x ip's and default gw b.b.b.1 They can see the host and each other on the same host, and they can even see other neighboring b.b.b.x hosts, external to the host, but on the same physical local switch where traffic does not have to go out of the switch up to the b.b.b.1 default gateway. (b.b.b.1 is on the other end of the fios line, not on premises and not owned or operated by me but by verizon) None of the hosts nor the switch has any vlans or tagging other than the default vlan id is 1 in the switch when left undefined. Software firewalls are disabled in the hosts and containers at least for now while still trying to figure this out. What in the world could allow a container in the host talk outside the host well enough to talk to other neighboring hosts on the same switch, but but just not be able to reach the default gateway outside the switch? It's like the gateway has firewalled certain ip's and not others, but the ips actually work fine if put on a laptop directly or if the hosts default gateway and nameserver are switched over to the b.b.b.x network. Say the host br1 is b.b.b.50 and a container is b.b.b.60, and there is one single switch connecting 4 things b.b.b.1 - default gateway on other end of uplink b.b.b.40 - neighboring host, regular traditional server, single ip. b.b.b.41 - neighboring host, regular traditional server, single ip. b.b.b.50 - the host b.b.b.51 - container 1 on host b.b.b.52 - container 2 on host All but the container are plugged into the same single switch, but .50 and .51 are on the same bridge on the host. The host .50 can ping and be pinged by all, itself, it's containers, neighboring hosts, containers inside neighboring hosts, and the gateway. The container .51 can ping .50, .52, and .40 and .41, but not .1 ! How in the world can .51 reach across the hosts br1 and across the switch to .41, and yet not do exactly the same thing for .1 which is exactly the same number and forms of hops away ? I've already called verizon tech support and they just said their equip ony reports all well, and I tested all ip's with a laptop directly on the b.b.b.x ethernet drop and they all worked fine that way , and swapped out my switch for another one just for the heck of it, so I'm down to config in my lxc hosts as the culprit. About the only consistent pattern I can find is the hosts default gateway. The only the containers that work fully are the ones that happen to use the same gateway as the host, but if a bridge interface is just a software switch then why should the hosts default gateway setting matter at all to the containers ability to talk across it? -- bkw -- Lotusphere 2011 Register now for Lotusphere 2011 and learn how to connect the dots, take your collaborative environment to the next level, and enter the era of Social Business. http://p.sf.net/sfu/lotusphere-d2d ___ Lxc-users mailing list Lxc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-users
Re: [Lxc-users] Container Filesystem in a file (loopback mount)
Andy Billington a...@andybillington.com writes: Btrfs-tools says 0.19 as that's what came in from the apt-get. Maybe newer btrfs versions may work better, but until they qualify for an apt-get in Ubuntu LTS, they aren't options. btrfs-tools version is largely irrelevant, it's a tiny C wrapper to generate appropriate syscalls -- all the smarts are in the kernel itself. $ rmadison -uubuntu,debian btrfs-tools ubuntu: btrfs-tools | 0.8-1 | hardy/universe | source, amd64, i386 btrfs-tools | 0.18-3 | jaunty/universe | source, amd64, i386 btrfs-tools | 0.19-3 | karmic/universe | source, amd64, i386 btrfs-tools | 0.19-8 | lucid/universe | source, amd64, i386 btrfs-tools | 0.19+20100601-3 | maverick | source, amd64, i386 btrfs-tools | 0.19+20100601-3 | natty | source, amd64, i386 debian: btrfs-tools | 0.19+20100601-3 | squeeze | source, amd64, armel, hppa, i386, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc btrfs-tools | 0.19+20100601-3 | sid | source, alpha, amd64, armel, hppa, i386, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc btrfs-tools | 0.19+20101101-1 | experimental | source, alpha, amd64, armel, i386, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc ZFS on the other hand has been rock solid in testing in this and other scenarios for two years, so the problems I've had are not LXC related, they are btrfs problems with the current LTS version of btrfs. Maybe someone can get look at getting that upgraded, if there is a stable release? But, as I said, digressing btrfs isn't stable. When it is, you'll need that kernel (e.g. 2.6.38), not just a new btrfs-tools userland. So basically for production you should just be waiting until 12.04 LTS. -- Lotusphere 2011 Register now for Lotusphere 2011 and learn how to connect the dots, take your collaborative environment to the next level, and enter the era of Social Business. http://p.sf.net/sfu/lotusphere-d2d ___ Lxc-users mailing list Lxc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-users
Re: [Lxc-users] Container Filesystem in a file (loopback mount)
btrfs isn't stable. When it is, you'll need that kernel (e.g. 2.6.38), not just a new btrfs-tools userland. So basically for production you should just be waiting until 12.04 LTS. I would expect it to be 2.6.42 to 2.6.46. Since 2.6.38 is just 3 months away. John -- Lotusphere 2011 Register now for Lotusphere 2011 and learn how to connect the dots, take your collaborative environment to the next level, and enter the era of Social Business. http://p.sf.net/sfu/lotusphere-d2d ___ Lxc-users mailing list Lxc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-users
Re: [Lxc-users] Container Filesystem in a file (loopback mount)
Sorry, I pulled .38 out of my arse; I didn't mean to imply it was a meaningful number. I would be happy if it becomes stable by your other guess. I mean ubuntu 12-04. We shall see. John -- Lotusphere 2011 Register now for Lotusphere 2011 and learn how to connect the dots, take your collaborative environment to the next level, and enter the era of Social Business. http://p.sf.net/sfu/lotusphere-d2d ___ Lxc-users mailing list Lxc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-users
