Hi Lon, > This is definitely something that should end up in bugzilla, if it isn't > already (it might be; I didn't check yet). > > It looks like what's going on is that we bring up the IP, but when we do > a "ping-self" test, it's failing (even though somehow the link-check is > succeeding?). We can, I suppose, do this test after bringing up the IP > address to prevent the "start" from succeeding (e.g. attached patch > should do this). Note, in the test I did a ifdown bond1 to disable the interface. I haven't unplugged the cables. > > However, I'm not sure it will help. In your logs, it says that > 10.226.3.80 started successfully - however, it didn't even *mention* > 10.0.46.46 in the start phase for whatever reason (but it does in the > status phase). > > * Could you tell me your netmasks of your 10.x.x.x addresses on bond0 > and bond1? 10.0.46.46 belongs to bond1 with netmask 255.255.248.0 10.226.3.80 belongs to bond2 with netmask 255.255.248.0 Mark -- Gruss / Regards, Dipl.-Ing. Mark Hlawatschek http://www.atix.de/ http://www.open-sharedroot.org/ ** ATIX - Ges. fuer Informationstechnologie und Consulting mbH Einsteinstr. 10 - 85716 Unterschleissheim - Germany -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
