>>> Marco Pfatschbacher <[email protected]> 27.07.2009 19:02 >>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 04:01:39PM +0200, Vadim Korschok wrote: > >>> Marco Pfatschbacher <[email protected]> 27.07.2009 11:35 >>> > >Hmm, > > >are you sure this is happening with OpenBSD? > >We solved that problem almost two years ago. > >Dunno if FreeBSD merged any of these changes... > > > > http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/netinet/ip_carp.c?f=h#rev1.152 > > The patch from Matthew is working under FreeBSD, but after the installation from FreeBSD we found out that load balancing / carpnodes are not supported. So we can not test same scenario under > FreeBSD. I've also tried to patch OpenBSD without luck.
> The patch is not necessary for OpenBSD. We already detect such a > loopback condition. So, to repeat my question: Are you seeing the same > problems as you had with FreeBSD under OpenBSD? I don't have any problemes in active/passive scenario. So this problemes does not occur on OpenBSD. Sorry and thanks. > I don't know VMWare too well, but I remember that their multicast > handling was somehow funny. > I would start without using load balancing. > Only if everything works as expected without, you can try turning it on. > However, there's no guarantee that ``balancing ip'' will work > with that virtual vmware switch. But I'm too lazy to explain why :) > Carp IP-Balancing has some known limitations (which I really should've > added to the manpage): It was meant to balance servers, not pf(4) > firewalls. Although it works for pf(4), the performance you gain isn't > that high and there are issues if you're using any kind of NAT. > HTH, > Marco
