On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 17:29 +0000, Karl Podesta wrote: > When we do this, 50% of packets get through (i.e. load balancing is working > and we can ping the other node), but the service fails to relocate with the > above error. When we have both NICs enabled, 100% of packets get through, > and service relocation works fine. So this seems to establish that network > activity/problems can disrupt the relocation of services if one of the nodes > is using load balancing on it's network bonding. Sound reasonable? Looks like you found it. I don't think you mentioned that one of the NICs was dead in your original post. Losing a NIC in active/active load-balancing bonding will definitely cause problems. The bonding driver isn't very smart about losing a link in load-balancing mode. I would switch both nodes to active/backup. -- Lon -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
