1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-sysadm] is the svn server down?
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-sysadm%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-sysadm%5D%20is%20the%20svn%20server%20down%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C201203311816.22955.alien%40rmail.be%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="004351.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-sysadm] is the svn server down?</H1>
<B>Maarten Vanraes</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-sysadm%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-sysadm%5D%20is%20the%20svn%20server%20down%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C201203311816.22955.alien%40rmail.be%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-sysadm] is the svn server down?">alien at rmail.be
</A><BR>
<I>Sat Mar 31 18:16:22 CEST 2012</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="004351.html">[Mageia-sysadm] is the svn server down?
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#4352">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#4352">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#4352">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#4352">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Op zaterdag 31 maart 2012 15:12:18 schreef Michael Scherer:
><i> Le samedi 31 mars 2012 à 12:51 +0200, nicolas vigier a écrit :
</I>><i> > On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, Michael Scherer wrote:
</I>><i> > > For the record, I see that 212.85.158.145 ( alamut default gateway,
</I>><i> > > whose reverse is gateway-mageia.ielo.net ) is not answering to ping and
</I>><i> > > on the other hand, the default gateway for zarb.org ( 212.85.158.1 )
</I>><i> > > answer to ping.
</I>><i> > >
</I>><i> > > And I am pretty sure that this gateway is after our switch from a
</I>><i> > > network point of view, and so that this should answer fine if our
</I>><i> > > switch is unplugged.
</I>><i> > >
</I>><i> > > So I suppose that this device ( 158.45 ) do send network
</I>><i> > > topology/routing with OSPF or RIP etc, and for some reason, it no
</I>><i> > > longer announce the route for our network.
</I>><i> > >
</I>><i> > > It could be caused by our switch being broken, but that would be rather
</I>><i> > > strange, as I do not know any network equipment that would act like
</I>><i> > > this ( doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, but usually, network is not
</I>><i> > > that smart ).
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > According to gradator, this is normal if the switch is down. When the
</I>><i> > port is down, OSPF automatically clear the route.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> But what about the default gateway ? IIRC, that's not our switch ( as
</I>><i> this is just a layer 2 switch ), so did it disappear on purpose once the
</I>><i> network disappeared too ?
</I>><i>
</I>><i> > > So what did IELO said exactly ?
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > The port where our switch is connected is down.
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > But even if the swich is not the problem, it would be a good idea to
</I>><i> > replace it for a bigger one, to allow us to connect the arm boards on
</I>><i> > it (instead of connecting them behind valstar). We also need to replace
</I>><i> > one of the disk on the arm boards which seems to be not working.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Connecting them behind valstar was also to protect them until we
</I>><i> properly secured them, since the password is still weak and easy to
</I>><i> attack from bruteforce. And AFAIK, we didn't plan to give direct access
</I>><i> to people, so that was useless and I think moving to a bastion model for
</I>><i> ssh access would be a improvement in term of security for others
</I>><i> builders too ( jonund, ecosse, and maybe fiona, depending how the backup
</I>><i> are done ).
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Also, just replacing the switch is not a improvement, since we will have
</I>><i> the same issue if this switch break ( unlikely, but so was the current
</I>><i> breakage, or the various hardware issues we faced each time we got there
</I>><i> ) so what about trying to have a more redundant setup ?
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Most, if not all, of our servers have 2 ethernet interface, so we could
</I>><i> try to see if bonding could help ( in case of ethernet card failure ) or
</I>><i> see if we can find a setup with 2 switchs ( one that doesn't cost too
</I>><i> much, cause of course, cisco can solve the issue for us, we just cannot
</I>><i> afford it ).
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Can we afford one or two switchs that support it ? ( I lost the name of
</I>><i> the current flavor du jour in term of bonding )
</I>
i think you're looking for distributed trunking? ie: having 2 cables in two
separate switches, so if a switch fails, it stays working...
but those switches are quite expensive, iinm at least 2kEUR/switch
non-distributed trunking is alot cheaper, but that just means half the servers
are down.
or we could just not bond and have 2 different networks over such servers. that
also works for redundancy, but on l3 instead of l2 and alot cheaper...
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="004351.html">[Mageia-sysadm] is the svn server down?
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#4352">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#4352">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#4352">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#4352">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<hr>
<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-sysadm">More information about the Mageia-sysadm
mailing list</a><br>
</body></html>
|
