>>>>> Apon upgrading to 2.6.29.6 from 2.6.22 and recompiling ipvsadm 1.25 to >>>>> get ipv6 support I'm getting the following error: >>>>> >>>>> Invalid operation. Possibly wrong module version, address not unicast, >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> when running ... >>>>> >>>>> ipvsadm -ln -t SERVICE_HERE >>>>> >>>>> There is absolutely nothing else that changed apart from the kernel and >>>>> recompile of 1.25. >>>>> >>>>> Everything seems to work fine, ipvsadm -ln works fine, setting up >>>>> services works fine as does all functionality except the above. >>>>> >>>>> Can anyone shed some light? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Hi Nigel, >>>> >>>> I'm not having any luck reproducing this problem. >>>> Is sane output produced when you run "ipvsadm -ln" ? >>>> Could you be more specific about what SERVICE_HERE is, >>>> and if it includes a host name if it resolves to an ipv4 >>>> or ipv6 address, or both? >>>> >>>> Also, is the 2.6.29.6 vanilla, or has it had some patches added? >>>> >>>> >>> 2.6.29.6 vanilla >>> >>> The problem above was due to some CFLAGS being set in the environment, >>> namely "-O2 --march=pentium-mmx". Without the env being set, there are >>> no more errors. I did a total rm -rf sources and recompile. >>> >>> Which brings me to another problem now... my ipvsadm -ln is not >>> displaying the current number of connections. I've copied the same >>> binary over to 2.6.29.5 and its working. Using the binary on 2.6.29.6 >>> seems to just give zero's. Also statement in the original post was >>> incorrect, -ln did work, but also didn't display the number of connections. >>> >>> # ipvsadm -v >>> ipvsadm v1.25 2008/5/15 (compiled with popt and IPVS v1.2.1) >>> >>> # ipvsadm -ln -t a.b.c.d:25 >>> Prot LocalAddress:Port Scheduler Flags >>> -> RemoteAddress:Port Forward Weight ActiveConn InActConn >>> TCP a.b.c.d:25 wlc >>> -> 10.0.200.131:25 Masq 240 0 75 >>> -> 10.0.200.141:25 Masq 239 0 69 >>> -> 10.0.200.151:25 Masq 238 0 69 >>> -> 10.0.200.161:25 Masq 239 0 67 >>> >>> # ipvsadm -ln -t a.b.c.d:25 --stats >>> Prot LocalAddress:Port Conns InPkts OutPkts InBytes >>> OutBytes >>> -> RemoteAddress:Port >>> TCP a.b.c.d:25 1516 37220 32114 31690896 1836300 >>> -> 10.0.200.131:25 404 13002 10258 10433390 >>> 556410 >>> -> 10.0.200.141:25 360 7119 6485 5986697 >>> 392303 >>> -> 10.0.200.151:25 390 9374 8454 8919481 >>> 485851 >>> -> 10.0.200.161:25 362 7726 6918 6351400 >>> 401884 >>> >>> # ipvsadm -ln -t a.b.c.d:25 --rate >>> Prot LocalAddress:Port CPS InPPS OutPPS InBPS >>> OutBPS >>> -> RemoteAddress:Port >>> TCP a.b.c.d:25 6 96 92 69714 5619 >>> -> 10.0.200.131:25 1 14 16 >>> 3177 1108 >>> -> 10.0.200.141:25 2 38 32 >>> 30077 1911 >>> -> 10.0.200.151:25 1 21 21 >>> 14418 1274 >>> -> 10.0.200.161:25 1 24 23 >>> 22041 1325 >>> >>> # ipvsadm -ln -c | grep ESTABLISHED | wc -l >>> 65 >>> >>> >> Ok ... I found the problem. >> >> * My scripts overrode CFLAGS= which is why it worked before, -D for NL >> was being forcefully removed. >> * I fixed this a few weeks ago, when upgrading .. same time I upgraded >> my kernel, appears that libnl is now used. >> * Below ... >> >> make HAVE_NL=0 POPT_LIB="-lpopt" <= that works fine, I get the correct >> listing below... >> TCP a.b.c.d:25 wlc >> -> 10.0.200.131:25 Masq 238 14 47 >> -> 10.0.200.141:25 Masq 241 14 36 >> -> 10.0.200.151:25 Masq 242 10 109 >> -> 10.0.200.161:25 Masq 242 13 90 >> >> make POPT_LIB="-lpopt" <= that gives wrong details for ActiveConn, below ... >> TCP a.b.c.d:25 wlc >> -> 10.0.200.131:25 Masq 240 0 31 >> -> 10.0.200.141:25 Masq 240 0 34 >> -> 10.0.200.151:25 Masq 241 0 94 >> -> 10.0.200.161:25 Masq 238 0 87 >> >> Same results on all kernel versions & servers I've tried. >> >> My problem is that using HAVE_NL=0 seems not to work with v6 support... >> /tmp/ipvsadm.no-nl -A -t [fc00::10]:25 -s rr >> Operation not supported with specified address family >> > That bit is expected, the NL support was added specifically > because the non-NL support couldn't be expanded to handle ipv6. > So as you need ipv6 you also need NL. And curiously that seems > to result in the connection count being bogus. > > Would it be possible for you to test this against a newer kernel - say > 2.6.32 or 2.6.33-rc4. It would be good to know if the problem is > still present.
I can with no doubt confirm the problem is still present in 2.6.33-rc5. I now have a test network setup especially for this. Regards Nigel _______________________________________________ Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at: http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - [email protected] Send requests to [email protected] or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
