Re: Help on debugging corosync communication

["Adrian Gibanel " <adrian.gibanel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I've finally used 192.168.58.10 and 192.168.58.11, kind of what you suggested.

And it works! But it need one more trick. Here there is:

On node 1:

iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p udp --dport 5405 \

-d 192.168.58.11 \

-j DNAT --to-destination 2.4.6.8:5405

iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p udp --dport 5404 \

-d 192.168.58.11 \

-j DNAT --to-destination 2.4.6.8:5404

On node 2:

iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p udp --dport 5405 \

-d 192.168.58.10 \

-j DNAT --to-destination 1.2.3.4:5405

iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p udp --dport 5404 \

-d 192.168.58.10 \

-j DNAT --to-destination 1.2.3.4:5404

Thank you!

---

De: "Jan Friesse" <jfriesse@xxxxxxxxxx>
Para: "Adrian Gibanel" <adrian.gibanel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Enviados: Lunes, 20 de Agosto 2012 12:59:17
Asunto: Re: Help on debugging corosync communication

Adrian Gibanel napsal(a):
> Even as I've described that they are both in totally different networks?
>

Yes. Even it purely theoretically it can work (udp side), corosync is
sending message which includes list of known nodes, and two
192.168.58.10 will simply not work.

Also keep in mind that redirecting 5405 is not enough. Corosync is also
using port - 1.

I believe what are you trying to achieve is stretch cluster, what is not
very well covered/tested field, so I really can't guarantee that
changing internal IP will work (and I personally think it will not).

Honza

> Thank you.
>
>> Although both nodes have the same 192.168.58.10 as you might see in the logs
>> they live in two different networks... I mean...
>> there's no problem about 192.168.58.10 begin repeated as far as I know.
>
> ----- Mensaje original -----
>
>> De: "Jan Friesse"<jfriesse@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Para: "Adrian Gibanel"<adrian.gibanel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> CC: discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Enviados: Lunes, 20 de Agosto 2012 11:26:36
>> Asunto: Re: Help on debugging corosync communication
>
>> So,
>> first problem is, that both of corosync nodes have same ip addrs.
>> Corosync nodes MUST have different addresses (so let's say
>> 192.168.58.1
>> and 192.168.58.2). You must configure them in so, so:
>
>> interface {
>> member {
>> memberaddr: 192.168.58.1
>> }
>> member {
>> memberaddr: 192.168.58.2
>> }
>> ringnumber: 0
>> bindnetaddr: 192.168.58.0
>> mcastport: 5405
>> }
>
>> I believe that main problem is, that you think that corosync is
>> responsible for keeping service IP (so let's say 192.168.58.10). It's
>> not, this is job for pacemaker and resource scripts.
>
>> So first, ensure you have really 2 different IPs on your nodes, you
>> can
>> ping them, then configure corosync correctly and I believe everything
>> will start working as expected.
>
>> Honza
>
>> Adrian Gibanel napsal(a):
>>> Short description
>>> ---------------------

--

Adrián Gibanel
I.T. Manager

+34 675 683 301
www.btactic.com



Ens podeu seguir a/Nos podeis seguir en:

i

Abans d´imprimir aquest missatge, pensa en el medi ambient. El medi ambient és cosa de tothom. / Antes de imprimir el mensaje piensa en el medio ambiente. El medio ambiente es cosa de todos.

AVIS:
El contingut d'aquest missatge i els seus annexos és confidencial. Si no en sou el destinatari, us fem saber que està prohibit utilitzar-lo, divulgar-lo i/o copiar-lo sense tenir l'autorització corresponent. Si heu rebut aquest missatge per error, us agrairem que ho feu saber immediatament al remitent i que procediu a destruir el missatge.

AVISO:
El contenido de este mensaje y de sus anexos es confidencial. Si no es el destinatario, les hacemos saber que está prohibido utilizarlo, divulgarlo y/o copiarlo sin tener la autorización correspondiente. Si han recibido este mensaje por error, les agradeceríamos que lo hagan saber inmediatamente al remitente y que procedan a destruir el mensaje.

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss