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

Re: Can't get NIC Bonding with active-backup working



On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 11:29:07 +0000, Shaun wrote:

> Have tried to get NIC Bonding working as per wiki.debian.org/Bonding.
> 
> Each NIC is connected to a different switch for redundancy rather than
> bandwidth purposes (insulate against a switch failure).  I'm using the
> active-backup mode for HA failover.
> 
> output from cat /etc/network/interfaces

(...)

I have the same setup as yours in my lenny servers but with a difference: 
both cards are connected to the same physical switch in the same VLAN.

> If I then pull a cable (or use ifconfig eth0 down) I get the following
> in the syslog:
> 
> Jan 23 11:21:50 host-1 kernel: [55852.565975] bonding: bond0: link status down for active interface eth0, disabling it in 200 ms. 
> Jan 23 11:21:51 host-1 kernel: [55852.761549] bonding: bond0: link status definitely down for interface eth0, disabling it 
> Jan 23 11:21:51 host-1 kernel: [55852.761555] bonding: bond0: making interface eth1 the new active one.
> 
> All looks good... but... ping from host-1 produces Destination host
> unreachable (with the icmp errors coming from the IP of the bond0 device
> itself).  And my remote ssh session dies.  Good job I have KVM access :)
> 
> So it's not working.  This setup seems so simple I can't see where
> anything could be wrong, so I'm starting to suspect a problem with the
> switch. Maybe the switch(es) are being too clever? But then again maybe
> I've done something wrong.
> 
> What can I do to find out what's going on?  I'm using Squeeze (current
> point release) and Kernel  2.6.32-5-amd64.

Mmm... have you tried the other way round? Disconnect eth1 and see if it 
works.

Another thing I would test is with no bonding setup at all, configure 
both ethernet cards separately and try to ping with both of them, i.e.:

ping -c 3 -I eth0 google.com
ping -c 3 -I eth1 google.com

Just to discard a hardware or routing issue.

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


Reply to: