Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On 14.01.2009, at 07:38, Andreas Raab wrote:
>> Hi Folks -
>>
>> I have a quick question about the expected behavior of the Unix VM
>> when running on a machine with multiple IP addresses. We have a box
>> with two interfaces (eth0 and eth1 respectively) and only eth0 was
>> originally enabled. Listening without specifying an interface worked
>> fine for clients connecting to the (static) IP configured for eth0.
>>
>> Then, we enabled eth1 and gave it its own (static) IP address. We had
>> two images running, one without specifying the interface, one
>> specifying the IP for eth1 (both images had been restarted after the
>> change was made). The result was that clients could connect to the
>> image running on eth1 but not to the one running on eth0. Only when we
>> changed that image to use the explicit IP address configured for eth0
>> everything worked as expected (i.e., clients could connect to either
>> IP address).
>>
>> Question: Is this the expected behavior? I'm not sure if not
>> specifying the interface implies that the VM accepts connections on
>> all interfaces, or only the first one, the last one, a random one or
>> not at all. Any insights are greatly appreciated - we have a working
>> setup but it would be nice to know whether this is what we should
>> expect to see or not.
>
>
> Well, I would expect it to listen on all interfaces.
>
> What does netstat say (or lsof)?
I'll have to check. This happened in an emergency (DDOS on our shiny new
data center which wasted more bandwidth than I could previously imagine)
and I couldn't spend much time on investigating the details. If things
are quiet tomorrow I can run a few tests. But it is useful to know that
the expected behavior is that it should be listening on all interfaces.
Lesson of the day: Big pipes are no replacement for a fallback system on
the other end of the world with all your data replicated on it. Well,
lesson learned :-(
Cheers,
- Andreas
Locked
