Hello Steven,
In multicast it log filling with this message
Nov 24 00:26:28 corosync [TOTEM ] A processor failed, forming new configuration.
Nov 24 00:26:28 corosync [TOTEM ] A processor joined or left the membership and a new membership was formed.
Nov 24 00:26:31 corosync [CPG ] chosen downlist: sender r(0) ip(10.10.10.1) ; members(old:2 left:0)
Nov 24 00:26:31 corosync [MAIN ] Completed service synchronization, ready to provide service.
Nov 24 00:26:28 corosync [TOTEM ] A processor joined or left the membership and a new membership was formed.
Nov 24 00:26:31 corosync [CPG ] chosen downlist: sender r(0) ip(10.10.10.1) ; members(old:2 left:0)
Nov 24 00:26:31 corosync [MAIN ] Completed service synchronization, ready to provide service.
In uudp it not working at all.
Slava.
From: "Digimer" <lists@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Slava Bendersky" <volga629@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Steven Dake" <sdake@xxxxxxxxxx>, discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 6:05:56 PM
Subject: Re: information request
So multicast works with the firewall disabled?
On 23/11/13 17:28, Slava Bendersky wrote:
> 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: 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?
>
--
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>
Cc: "Steven Dake" <sdake@xxxxxxxxxx>, discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 6:05:56 PM
Subject: Re: information request
> 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: 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?
>
--
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
