On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 02:44:32PM +0300, Ari Suutari wrote:
I have seen similar problems when the carp multicast (224.0.0.18)
traffic was not allowed to be transmitted to the network due to a
firewall configuration problem.
Firewall wasn't enabled at this point, I wanted to keep
Eugene Grosbein wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 02:44:32PM +0300, Ari Suutari wrote:
I have seen similar problems when the carp multicast (224.0.0.18)
traffic was not allowed to be transmitted to the network due to a
firewall configuration problem.
Firewall wasn't enabled at this
Hi,
Ari Suutari wrote:
I have now tested with real hardware (ethernet is fxp0) and
under VmWare (ethernet is lnc0). Same problem on both.
I'll have to correct this. Carp works with fxp0. Problem is
only under vmware, which makes me more and more suspect
that it
Ari Suutari wrote:
Ari Suutari wrote:
I have now tested with real hardware (ethernet is fxp0) and
under VmWare (ethernet is lnc0). Same problem on both.
I'll have to correct this. Carp works with fxp0. Problem is
only under vmware, which makes me more and more suspect
that
Hi,
Tom Judge wrote:
Ari Suutari wrote:
Ari Suutari wrote:
I have now tested with real hardware (ethernet is fxp0) and
under VmWare (ethernet is lnc0). Same problem on both.
I'll have to correct this. Carp works with fxp0. Problem is
only under vmware, which makes me more
On Oct 13, 2006, at 1:43 AM, Ari Suutari wrote:
a kernel implementation. It doesn't require both nodes to
be alive when the system starts, if there is only one system and
it doesn't hear advertisements from anyone, it goes to MASTER
state after a while.
This
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006, Vivek Khera wrote:
On Oct 13, 2006, at 1:43 AM, Ari Suutari wrote:
a kernel implementation. It doesn't require both nodes to
be alive when the system starts, if there is only one system and
it doesn't hear advertisements from anyone, it goes to
Hi,
I started experimenting with carp, in order to replace
freevrrpd stuff we are currently using.
I'm running quite recent version of RELENG_6 (compiled
this week).
I was able to configure carp ok, but for some odd reason the
interface goes down by itself shortly after it has been configured.
Ari Suutari wrote:
Hi,
I started experimenting with carp, in order to replace
freevrrpd stuff we are currently using.
I'm running quite recent version of RELENG_6 (compiled
this week).
I was able to configure carp ok, but for some odd reason the
interface goes down by itself shortly after it
Hi,
Tom Judge wrote:
I have seen similar problems when the carp multicast (224.0.0.18)
traffic was not allowed to be transmitted to the network due to a
firewall configuration problem.
Firewall wasn't enabled at this point, I wanted to keep things
as simple as possible during
Ari Suutari [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
carp0: flags=49UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING mtu 1500
inet 192.168.5.59 netmask 0xff00
carp: BACKUP vhid 55 advbase 1 advskew 0
+ sleep 5
+ ifconfig carp0
carp0: flags=8LOOPBACK mtu 1500
carp: INIT vhid 55 advbase 1 advskew 0
See,
On Oct 12, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Marko Lerota wrote:
I think the interface didn't get sync from other carp interface,
so it doesn't know that he is the MASTER or BACKUP, and because
of that goes into the INIT state.
Shouldn't it then move to MASTER since the other server could
possibly be
Vivek Khera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Oct 12, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Marko Lerota wrote:
I think the interface didn't get sync from other carp interface,
so it doesn't know that he is the MASTER or BACKUP, and because
of that goes into the INIT state.
Shouldn't it then move to MASTER since
Marko Lerota [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Shouldn't it then move to MASTER since the other server could
possibly be dead?
Yes, but if interface had _never_ received any pfsync packet,
and sysctl is set to net.inet.carp.preempt=0 ?
Maybe it's because of that. Don't know really. Documentation
Hi,
Vivek Khera wrote:
On Oct 12, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Marko Lerota wrote:
I think the interface didn't get sync from other carp interface,
so it doesn't know that he is the MASTER or BACKUP, and because
of that goes into the INIT state.
Shouldn't it then move to MASTER since the other server
Hi,
Marko Lerota wrote:
I meant:
Maybe first they have to talk to each other and say:
OK, I will be the master first, and you wait. And if I don't send
you any more sync packets, then you should be in charge :)
I have been using freevrrpd for quite a long time now and
I
16 matches
Mail list logo