ctdb - public ip is assigned to us but not on an interface - error

[lejeczek]

On 27/01/17 08:02, Martin Schwenke wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 20:11:03 +0000, lejeczek <peljasz at yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Cluster runs on Centos 7.x
>> I believe it worked with distro's ctdb-4.4.4-9.el7.x86_64.
>> Now when it fails it is ctdb-4.4.4-12.el7_3.x86_64.
>> It loops forever:
>>
>> 2017/01/25 20:09:43.763947 [recoverd:17247]: Trigger takeoverrun
>> 2017/01/25 20:09:43.765976 [recoverd:17247]: Takeover run
>> starting
>> 2017/01/25 20:09:43.777047 [17145]: Takeover of IP
>> 10.5.10.51/28 on interface eth0
>> 2017/01/25 20:09:45.360099 [recoverd:17247]: Takeover run
>> completed successfully
>> 2017/01/25 20:09:45.371403 [recoverd:17247]: Public IP
>> '10.5.10.51' is assigned to us but not on an interface
>> 2017/01/25 20:09:45.371436 [recoverd:17247]: Trigger takeoverrun
>> 2017/01/25 20:09:45.371824 [recoverd:17247]: Takeover run
>> starting
>> 2017/01/25 20:09:45.372434 [17145]: Takeover of IP
>> 10.5.10.51/28 on interface eth0
>> 2017/01/25 20:09:47.136951 [recoverd:17247]: Takeover run
>> completed successfully
>> 2017/01/25 20:09:47.152961 [recoverd:17247]: Public IP
>> '10.5.10.51' is assigned to us but not on an interface
>> 2017/01/25 20:09:47.152987 [recoverd:17247]: Trigger takeoverrun
>> 2017/01/25 20:09:47.154833 [recoverd:17247]: Takeover run
>> starting
>> 2017/01/25 20:09:47.156935 [17145]: Takeover of IP
>> 10.5.10.51/28 on interface eth0
> It might be worth seeing the changelog for the RPM to see what has
> changed, since it is actually the same CTDB version, perhaps with
> distro patches on top.
>
> The other thing to check is whether the IP address is actually on the
> interface.   If not, are you able to add it using:
>
>    ip addr add 10.5.10.51/28 dev eth0
>
> or similar?

nope, like ctdb says: is assigned to us but not on an interface
when I add the IP manually, with ip ... ctdb becomes 
instantly quiet and... seems ok(?)

>
> If CTDB can't add it then there should be an error from the
> 10.interface event script... but we're not seeing an error.
>
> The relevant code has seen some improvement in recent versions but I
> don't remember it failing like this...
>
> peace & happiness,
> martin
>