Hi all,
This ones got me kinda stumped... I'm trying to build a total of 5 nodes in a cluster - but am getting stuck at three with issues I can't really explain.
So far, I have 3 machines with the following IPs:
192.168.51.1
192.168.133.2
192.168.133.4
If I leave these all set to the default MTU of 1500, then the nodes seem to have intermittent connectivity between them... Logs appear in journalctl as follows:
corosync.conf is as follows:
With the MTU set to 1400 across the board, the nodes talk to each other etc - but this seems to cause issues with running CT's / VMs that still want to use 1500 bytes as an MTU...
So, with 1400 bytes:
Everything on the cluster side seems happy....
Node #2 is over an IPSec VPN - so it is possible that there is a lower MTU required for transit over the IPSec VPN.
Pinging across the VPN to non-proxmox hosts, I see:
So, is it possible to figure out why pMTU with corosync says 1484 bytes, but I'm seeing different?
Can I pin the cluster at a lower MTU but leave the ethernet interfaces at 1500? We've only seen this happen whilst using Proxmox... Normal web traffic etc across the same VPN has been operating fine for years...
This ones got me kinda stumped... I'm trying to build a total of 5 nodes in a cluster - but am getting stuck at three with issues I can't really explain.
So far, I have 3 machines with the following IPs:
192.168.51.1
192.168.133.2
192.168.133.4
If I leave these all set to the default MTU of 1500, then the nodes seem to have intermittent connectivity between them... Logs appear in journalctl as follows:
Code:
Oct 06 13:04:40 cly-pm-tmp corosync[1101]: [KNET ] pmtud: possible MTU misconfiguration detected. kernel is reporting MTU: 1500 bytes for host 2 link 0 but the other node is not acknowledging packets of this size.
Oct 06 13:04:40 cly-pm-tmp corosync[1101]: [KNET ] pmtud: This can be caused by this node interface MTU too big or a network device that does not support or has been misconfigured to manage MTU of this size, or packet loss. knet will c
Oct 06 13:04:41 cly-pm-tmp pmxcfs[959]: [dcdb] notice: cpg_send_message retry 40
Oct 06 13:04:41 cly-pm-tmp pmxcfs[959]: [dcdb] notice: cpg_send_message retry 40
Oct 06 13:04:42 cly-pm-tmp pmxcfs[959]: [dcdb] notice: cpg_send_message retry 50
Oct 06 13:04:42 cly-pm-tmp pmxcfs[959]: [dcdb] notice: cpg_send_message retry 50
Oct 06 13:04:43 cly-pm-tmp pmxcfs[959]: [dcdb] notice: cpg_send_message retry 60
Oct 06 13:04:44 cly-pm-tmp pmxcfs[959]: [status] notice: cpg_send_message retry 70
Oct 06 13:04:44 cly-pm-tmp pmxcfs[959]: [status] notice: cpg_send_message retry 70
Oct 06 13:04:45 cly-pm-tmp pmxcfs[959]: [dcdb] notice: cpg_send_message retry 80
Oct 06 13:04:45 cly-pm-tmp pmxcfs[959]: [dcdb] notice: cpg_send_message retry 80
Oct 06 13:04:46 cly-pm-tmp pmxcfs[959]: [dcdb] notice: cpg_send_message retry 90
Oct 06 13:04:46 cly-pm-tmp pmxcfs[959]: [dcdb] notice: cpg_send_message retry 90
Oct 06 13:04:47 cly-pm-tmp pmxcfs[959]: [status] notice: cpg_send_message retry 100
Oct 06 13:04:47 cly-pm-tmp pmxcfs[959]: [status] notice: cpg_send_message retried 100 times
Oct 06 13:04:47 cly-pm-tmp pvesr[1673]: error during cfs-locked 'file-replication_cfg' operation: got lock request timeout
Oct 06 13:04:47 cly-pm-tmp pmxcfs[959]: [status] crit: cpg_send_message failed: 6
Oct 06 13:04:47 cly-pm-tmp systemd[1]: pvesr.service: Main process exited, code=exited, status=16/n/a
Oct 06 13:04:47 cly-pm-tmp systemd[1]: pvesr.service: Failed with result 'exit-code'.
Oct 06 13:04:47 cly-pm-tmp systemd[1]: Failed to start Proxmox VE replication runner.
Oct 06 13:04:47 cly-pm-tmp pve-firewall[1119]: firewall update time (10.042 seconds)
Oct 06 13:04:48 cly-pm-tmp pmxcfs[959]: [dcdb] notice: cpg_send_message retry 10
Oct 06 13:04:48 cly-pm-tmp pmxcfs[959]: [status] notice: cpg_send_message retry 10
Oct 06 13:04:49 cly-pm-tmp pmxcfs[959]: [dcdb] notice: cpg_send_message retry 20
Oct 06 13:04:49 cly-pm-tmp pmxcfs[959]: [status] notice: cpg_send_message retry 20
Oct 06 13:04:50 cly-pm-tmp pmxcfs[959]: [dcdb] notice: cpg_send_message retry 30
Oct 06 13:04:50 cly-pm-tmp pmxcfs[959]: [status] notice: cpg_send_message retry 30
corosync.conf is as follows:
Code:
logging {
debug: off
to_syslog: yes
}
nodelist {
node {
name: cbd-pm-2
nodeid: 3
quorum_votes: 1
ring0_addr: 192.168.133.2
}
node {
name: cly-pm-1
nodeid: 2
quorum_votes: 1
ring0_addr: 192.168.51.1
}
node {
name: cly-pm-tmp
nodeid: 1
quorum_votes: 1
ring0_addr: 192.168.133.4
}
}
quorum {
provider: corosync_votequorum
}
totem {
cluster_name: proxmoxcluster
config_version: 4
interface {
linknumber: 0
}
ip_version: ipv4-6
link_mode: passive
secauth: on
version: 2
}
With the MTU set to 1400 across the board, the nodes talk to each other etc - but this seems to cause issues with running CT's / VMs that still want to use 1500 bytes as an MTU...
So, with 1400 bytes:
Code:
# pvecm status
Cluster information
-------------------
Name: proxmoxcluster
Config Version: 4
Transport: knet
Secure auth: on
Quorum information
------------------
Date: Tue Oct 6 14:24:03 2020
Quorum provider: corosync_votequorum
Nodes: 3
Node ID: 0x00000001
Ring ID: 1.1ab6
Quorate: Yes
Votequorum information
----------------------
Expected votes: 3
Highest expected: 3
Total votes: 3
Quorum: 2
Flags: Quorate
Membership information
----------------------
Nodeid Votes Name
0x00000001 1 192.168.133.4 (local)
0x00000002 1 192.168.51.1
0x00000003 1 192.168.133.2
Everything on the cluster side seems happy....
Node #2 is over an IPSec VPN - so it is possible that there is a lower MTU required for transit over the IPSec VPN.
Pinging across the VPN to non-proxmox hosts, I see:
Code:
$ ping -M do -s 1411 192.168.133.1
PING 192.168.133.1 (192.168.133.1) 1411(1439) bytes of data.
ping: local error: Message too long, mtu=1438
ping: local error: Message too long, mtu=1438
ping: local error: Message too long, mtu=1438
So, is it possible to figure out why pMTU with corosync says 1484 bytes, but I'm seeing different?
Can I pin the cluster at a lower MTU but leave the ethernet interfaces at 1500? We've only seen this happen whilst using Proxmox... Normal web traffic etc across the same VPN has been operating fine for years...