Hello Steven,
I disabled iptables and no difference, error message the same, but at least in multicast is wasn't generate the error.
Slava.
From: "Digimer" <lists@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Slava Bendersky" <volga629@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Steven Dake" <sdake@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 4:37:36 PM
Subject: Re: [corosync] information request
Does either mcast or unicast work if you disable the firewall? If so,
then at least you know for sure that iptables is the problem.
The link here shows the iptables rules I use (for corosync in mcast and
other apps):
https://alteeve.ca/w/AN!Cluster_Tutorial_2#Configuring_iptables
digimer
On 23/11/13 16:12, Slava Bendersky wrote:
> Hello Steven,
> Than what I see when setup through UDPU
>
> Nov 23 22:08:13 corosync [MAIN ] Compatibility mode set to whitetank.
> Using V1 and V2 of the synchronization engine.
> Nov 23 22:08:13 corosync [TOTEM ] adding new UDPU member {10.10.10.1}
> Nov 23 22:08:16 corosync [MAIN ] Totem is unable to form a cluster
> because of an operating system or network fault. The most common cause
> of this message is that the local firewall is configured improperly.
>
>
> Might be missing some firewall rules ? I allowed unicast.
>
> Slava.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *"Steven Dake" <sdake@xxxxxxxxxx>
> *To: *"Slava Bendersky" <volga629@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Cc: *discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Sent: *Saturday, November 23, 2013 10:33:31 AM
> *Subject: *Re: information request
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> https://github.com/corosync/corosync/blob/master/include/corosync/corotypes.h#L84
>
> 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
>
--
Digimer
Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/
What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without
access to education?
To: "Slava Bendersky" <volga629@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Steven Dake" <sdake@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 4:37:36 PM
Subject: Re: [corosync] information request
then at least you know for sure that iptables is the problem.
other apps):
> Hello Steven,
> Than what I see when setup through UDPU
>
> Nov 23 22:08:13 corosync [MAIN ] Compatibility mode set to whitetank.
> Using V1 and V2 of the synchronization engine.
> Nov 23 22:08:13 corosync [TOTEM ] adding new UDPU member {10.10.10.1}
> Nov 23 22:08:16 corosync [MAIN ] Totem is unable to form a cluster
> because of an operating system or network fault. The most common cause
> of this message is that the local firewall is configured improperly.
>
>
> Might be missing some firewall rules ? I allowed unicast.
>
> Slava.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *"Steven Dake" <sdake@xxxxxxxxxx>
> *To: *"Slava Bendersky" <volga629@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Cc: *discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Sent: *Saturday, November 23, 2013 10:33:31 AM
> *Subject: *Re: information request
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> https://github.com/corosync/corosync/blob/master/include/corosync/corotypes.h#L84
>
> 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
>
--
Digimer
Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/
What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without
access to education?
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
