Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 14:14:23 -0800 (PST) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> To: msmith@FreeBSD.ORG (Mike Smith) Cc: jeffrl@wantabe.com (Jeffrey J. Libman), freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mountd and rpc.statd won't run Message-ID: <199912202214.OAA44113@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <199912202157.NAA00717@mass.cdrom.com> from Mike Smith at "Dec 20, 1999 01:57:47 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > after moving 54 virtual hosts to this machine, rpc.statd will not run: it > > hangs; mountd runs (-r or not -r), but will not serve up mounts and dies. > > Sounds like you may have DNS issues with one or more of the virtual IPs. > > > 2) configure the loopback interface properly. (i assign all virtual ip's > > to the lo0 interface). > > That's actually not really a good idea. Bind them to the interface that > they'll be communicating on; that way you don't need to route them. That one is actually a double edge sword. Binding them to the ethernet interface leads to arp table explosion on your routers and/or any other boxes on the network. We prefer to route them to lo0 in subnet chunks, but then we also run ospf on these boxes so that routing is a non-issue, we can also move a virtual from one server to another very easily. Also if you are managing large chunks of virtuals you have to go to supernetted ethernet IP addresses, and _lots_ of boxes can't cope with that. > > > b) it has been claimed that the virtual ip's need netmask > > 0xffffffff rather than 0xffffff00. i have tried it both ways. > > That's also not correct. The virtual addresses need to be configured > _correctly_, where all the normal rules regarding netmask overlap are > followed. > > ie. if you have three 'virtual' addresses 10.0.0.1, 10.0.0.2 and > 10.0.0.3, you would add them as: > > 10.0.0.1 / 255.0.0.0 > 10.0.0.2 / 255.255.255.255 > 10.0.0.3 / 255.255.255.255 Actually 10.0.0.1/32 10.0.0.2/32 10.0.0.3/32 works just fine... and I can have another box that has 10.0.0.4/32 10.0.0.5/32 on it without a bit of problem. If one uses the /8 you have above it can create some interesting routing problems for the box that it lives on if you have 10/8 variablly subnetted and or other viruals on other boxes in that IP space. > > In other words, you add an aliased address with the correct netmask, > unless it overlaps a network previously established by another address, > in which case you add it with an all-ones netmask. We _always_ use /32 (all ones) and aggregate a route if a box has a large enough chunk of virtuals to be able to create a /30 or larger. -- Rod Grimes - KD7CAX @ CN85sl - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199912202214.OAA44113>