On 11/23/2013 08:23 AM, Slava Bendersky
wrote:
Hello Steven,
My setup
10.10.10.1 primary server -----EoIP tunnel vpn ipsec -----
dr server 10.10.10.2
On both servers is 2 interfaces eth0 which default gw out
and eth1 where corosync live.
Iptables:
-A INPUT -i eth1 -p udp -m state --state NEW -m udp --dport
5404:5407
-A INPUT -i eth1 -m pkttype --pkt-type multicast
-A INPUT -i eth1 -p igmp
Corosync.conf
totem {
version: 2
token: 160
token_retransmits_before_loss_const: 3
join: 250
consensus: 300
vsftype: none
max_messages: 20
threads: 0
nodeid: 2
rrp_mode: active
interface {
ringnumber: 0
bindnetaddr: 10.10.10.0
mcastaddr: 226.94.1.1
mcastport: 5405
}
}
Join message
[root@eusipgw01 ~]# corosync-objctl | grep member
runtime.totem.pg.mrp.srp.members.2.ip=r(0) ip(10.10.10.2)
runtime.totem.pg.mrp.srp.members.2.join_count=1
runtime.totem.pg.mrp.srp.members.2.status=joined
runtime.totem.pg.mrp.srp.members.1.ip=r(0) ip(10.10.10.1)
runtime.totem.pg.mrp.srp.members.1.join_count=254
runtime.totem.pg.mrp.srp.members.1.status=joined
Is it possible that ping sends out of wrong interface ?
Slava,
I wouldn't expect so.
Which version?
Have you tried udpu instead? If not, it is preferable to multicast
unless you want absolute performance on cpg groups. In most cases
the performance difference is very small and not worth the trouble
of setting up multicast in your network.
Fabio had indicated rrp active mode is broken. I don't know the
details, but try passive RRP - it is actually better then active
IMNSHO :)
Regards
-steve
Slava.
From: "Steven
Dake" <sdake@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Slava Bendersky" <volga629@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 6:01:11 AM
Subject: Re: information request
On 11/23/2013 12:29 AM, Slava
Bendersky wrote:
Hello Everyone,
Corosync run on box with 2 Ethernet interfaces.
I am getting this message
CPG mcast failed (6)
Any information thank you in advance.
This can occur because:
a) firewall is enabled - there should be something in the logs
telling you to properly configure the firewall
b) a config change is in progress - this is a normal response,
and you should try the request again
c) a bug in the synchronization code is resulting in a blocked
unsynced cluster
c is very unlikely at this point.
2 ethernet interfaces = rrp mode, bonding, or something else?
Digimer needs moar infos :)
Regards
-steve
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
|
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
