[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: failing all vrrp interfaces.



It appears that the vrrp IP is removed when a regular kill signal is
issued the the vrrpd PID. It was only when kill -9 was issued to the PID
that the IP would be left on the interface.

I've also decided to use keepalived (http://keepalived.sourceforge.net/)
since its vrrpd implemenation is quite nice.

I would highly suggest anyone looking into vrrp with linux take a look at
keepalived.

Cheers.

 On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Philipp Schmidt wrote:

> On Mon, 2002-09-09 13:56:10 -0400, Steve Mickeler <steve@neptune.ca>
> wrote in message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0209091349550.10469-100000@triton.neptune.on.ca>:
> >
> > The issue I'm trying to tackle is dealing with multiple interfaces in
> > vrrpd. I need to make sure that all vrrpd daemons and aliases on the
> > failed server are brought down.
> >
> > One thing I noticed is that if you kill the the vrrpd PID's, the vrrp
> > virtual IP address is still aliased to the server that has its
> > vrrpd processes killed. if you do an "ip address ls" you can see the
> > virtual IP address bound to the interface.
> >
> > Any idea of how to drop the alias when the vrrpd daemon is killed ?
> >
>
> have a look on the "ip" utility (iproute2 package)
>
> AVE!
>   phils...
>
> --
>      PHILIPP SCHMIDT / phils - - + - - > philipp@ppc.in-berlin.de
>                                  ` - - > http://home.pages.de/~phils/
>      --> ONLINE fuer Berlin & BRB? IN-Berlin! (info@in-berlin.de) <--
>
> Lbh unir whfg ivbyngrq gur Qvtvgny Zvyraavhz Pbclevtug Npg ol oernxvat gur
> cebgrpgvba bs pbclevtugrq zngrevny.  Vs lbh ner abg n pvgvmra be erfvqrag bs
> gur HFN, lbh evfx orvat vzcevfbarq naq uryq jvgubhg onvy sbe hc gb gjb jrrxf
> hcba ragel gb gur HFN (c) Copyright 2001 by Hartmann Schaffer (signature only)
>
> :wq
>



[-] Steve Mickeler [ steve@neptune.ca ]

[|] Todays root password is brought to you by /dev/random

[+] 1024D/9AA80CDF = 4103 9E35 2713 D432 924F  3C2E A7B9 A0FE 9AA8 0CDF



Reply to: