Re: [Sqlgrey-users] Load balancing question, part 2

[Gary S. <gar...@ho...>]

> > You could try talking with the load balancing folk.
> >
> 
> I'm working with them on this as well.  As for right now, sqlgrey is the only
> service that I am having problems with.  I had issues with mysql as well, but
> fixing the arp issue seemed to resolve it for that server.  It did not however
> resolve it for sqlgrey.  I'm pretty sure that it has something to do with the
> return close from postfix to the load balancer.  I don't think that the close
> is actually making it back.  At the same time, postfix enters a FIN_WAIT for a
> minute or so, then it falls off.
> 
> Anyway, I will also check with the postfix group as well as there could be
> something in the closure logic for policy maps that's only brought forward
> during this type of scenario.
> 

Things work much better.  The lost connections were because of iptables.  I have this rule early on for server that has the director.  I guess the ACK FIN is an technically an invalid state...

-A INPUT -p tcp -m conntrack --ctstate INVALID -j LOG --log-prefix "FW-I BF: " 
-A INPUT -p tcp -m conntrack --ctstate INVALID -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-port-unreachable

Apr 26 04:36:02 wall1 kernel: FW-I BF: IN=br0 OUT= PHYSIN=eth1 MAC=00:50:56:b1:63:bc:00:0c:29:92:be:b7:08:00 SRC=10.80.66.24 DST=10.80.55.11 LEN=52 TOS=0x08 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=40835 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=52114 DPT=3917 WINDOW=363 RES=0x00 ACK FIN URGP=0 

> Gary Smith
>