Thread: [SSI-devel] http_proxy is ignored for some applications executed under bash-ll
Brought to you by:
brucewalker,
rogertsang
From: Valery A.K. <va...@bi...> - 2004-06-08 13:35:22
|
Hi devels, when i run mozilla without any migration allowed (neither explicit nor implicit) it runs just fine through proxy using http_proxy variable settings. If i run it from "bash-ll" i have to go in mozilla's preferences and supply proxy settings to get via proxy. I know another application with the same behaviour. BTW, "wget" doesn't have this problem (maybe wget checks http_proxy variable directly). -- V. |
From: Valery A.K. <va...@bi...> - 2004-06-17 13:33:50
|
Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > when i run mozilla without any migration allowed (neither explicit nor > implicit) > it runs just fine through proxy using http_proxy variable settings. If > i run it > from "bash-ll" i have to go in mozilla's preferences and supply proxy > settings > to get via proxy. I know another application with the same behaviour. > > BTW, "wget" doesn't have this problem (maybe wget checks http_proxy > variable > directly). hm, am I alone with this problem?.. -- V. |
From: Chirag K. <chi...@hp...> - 2004-06-17 13:44:44
|
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:33:13PM +0200, Valery A.Khamenya wrote: | >when i run mozilla without any migration allowed (neither explicit nor= =20 | >implicit) | >it runs just fine through proxy using http_proxy variable settings. If= =20 | >i run it | >from "bash-ll" i have to go in mozilla's preferences and supply proxy=20 | >settings | >to get via proxy. I know another application with the same behaviour. | > | >BTW, "wget" doesn't have this problem (maybe wget checks http_proxy=20 | >variable | >directly). If I understand your problem correctly, this is what you do: 0. Start bash 1. Start mozilla from the bash prompt 2. You check the proxy settings; they are untouched, and you could surf to slashdot.org 3. Quit mozilla 4. Start bash-ll 5. Start mozilla from the bash-ll prompt 6. You check the proxy settings, and find them missing Is that correct? --=20 Chirag Kantharia, chi...@hp... |
From: Valery A.K. <va...@bi...> - 2004-06-17 14:01:29
|
Chirag Kantharia wrote: >If I understand your problem correctly, this is what you do: > >0. Start bash >1. Start mozilla from the bash prompt >2. You check the proxy settings; they are untouched, and you could > surf to slashdot.org >3. Quit mozilla >4. Start bash-ll >5. Start mozilla from the bash-ll prompt >6. You check the proxy settings, and find them missing > >Is that correct? > > No. Sorry, I see i was just unclear. Here we go again: 0. Start bash 1. Start mozilla from the bash prompt 2. I check the proxy settings; they are "Direct connection to Internet", and I could surf to slashdot.org (because mozilla uses http_proxy in some way, maybe indirect though) 3. Quit mozilla 4. Start bash-ll 5. Start mozilla from the bash-ll prompt 6. I check the proxy settings, and they are still "Direct connection to Internet", *but* I can *not* surf to slashdot.org anymore with this settings 7. I go to Mozilla proxy settings and change "Direct connection to Internet" to "Manual proxy settings" and provide there the value from my http_proxy variable. Now mozilla works fine again. I could try to reformulate again if needed, just let me know! -- V. |
From: Chirag K. <chi...@hp...> - 2004-06-17 14:56:52
|
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:00:36PM +0200, Valery A.Khamenya wrote: | Sorry, I see i was just unclear. Here we go again: This probably makes more sense than the former. | 0. Start bash | 1. Start mozilla from the bash prompt | 2. I check the proxy settings; they are "Direct connection to Internet",= =20 | and I could surf to slashdot.org (because mozilla uses http_proxy in=20 | some way, maybe indirect though) | 3. Quit mozilla | 4. Start bash-ll | 5. Start mozilla from the bash-ll prompt | 6. I check the proxy settings, and they are still=20 | "Direct connection to Internet", *but* I can *not* surf=20 | to slashdot.org anymore with this settings | 7. I go to Mozilla proxy settings and change "Direct connection to=20 | Internet" to "Manual proxy settings" and provide there the value from my= =20 | http_proxy variable. Now mozilla works fine again. I suppose you would have already done this, but nonetheless, could you: 0. start bash 1. echo $http_proxy 2. start bash-ll 3. echo $http_proxy and report? Thanks, --=20 Chirag Kantharia, chi...@hp... |
From: Valery A.K. <va...@bi...> - 2004-06-18 07:04:54
|
Chirag Kantharia wrote: >I suppose you would have already done this, but nonetheless, could >you: > >0. start bash >1. echo $http_proxy >2. start bash-ll >3. echo $http_proxy > >and report? > > yes, of course I have checked that before report this issue. Both "echo" return the same valid value in the form IP:port. So, http_proxy is not cleared/changed after I enter bash-ll. -- V. |
From: Chirag K. <chi...@hp...> - 2004-06-18 14:00:39
|
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 09:04:07AM +0200, Valery A.Khamenya wrote: | yes, of course I have checked that before report this issue. Both "echo"= =20 | return the same | valid value in the form IP:port. So, http_proxy is not cleared/changed=20 | after I enter bash-ll. Does wget have this problem? I think, it would be easier to strace a wget, than mozilla. --=20 Chirag Kantharia, chi...@hp... |
From: Valery A.K. <va...@bi...> - 2004-06-18 14:20:30
|
Chirag Kantharia wrote: >Does wget have this problem? I think, it would be easier to strace a >wget, than mozilla. > > sorry for referring to such a dirty approach, but: 1. my wget's binary *does* contain http_proxy string 2. files from my mozilla directories do *not* have http_proxy string at all So, in order to get an idea, why this "bash-ll/http_proxy" issue happens I could propose to look into docs, where indirect usage of http_proxy is described -- V. |
From: Valery A.K. <va...@bi...> - 2004-06-25 11:28:42
|
Chirag Kantharia wrote: >Does wget have this problem? I think, it would be easier to strace a >wget, than mozilla. > > you don't need mozilla even, just use ftp :-) BTW, this issue never appears if the master node is the only node started in cluster. So, I guess, this trouble is caused by migration somehow. Anyone got the same troubles with proxies? - V. |
From: Chirag K. <chi...@hp...> - 2004-06-25 14:25:45
|
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 01:27:53PM +0200, Valery A.Khamenya wrote: | >Does wget have this problem? I think, it would be easier to strace a | >wget, than mozilla. | you don't need mozilla even, just use ftp :-) You mean to say, ftp uses ftp_proxy env variable? There are some references to the string proxy in `strings /usr/bin/ftp` but, can't see any ftp_proxy there. | BTW, this issue never appears if the master node is the only node | started in cluster. So, I guess, this trouble is caused by migration | somehow. To check, I just did: $ export > export.`clusternode_num` $ echo 2 > /proc/self/goto $ export > export.`clusernode_num` $ diff -u export* There's no diff. Perhaps, you could do that on your cluster, and see. I have this vague feeling that the problem's specific to mozilla, and won't affect anything else. --=20 Chirag Kantharia, chi...@hp... |
From: Valery A.K. <va...@bi...> - 2004-06-25 14:29:24
|
Chirag Kantharia wrote: >You mean to say, ftp uses ftp_proxy env variable? > i mean ftp uses that implicitly (indirect) >There are some >references to the string proxy in `strings /usr/bin/ftp` but, can't >see any ftp_proxy there. > > i know :-) >I have this vague feeling that the problem's specific to mozilla, and >won't affect anything else. > > no. What I have tried to say in prevoius post: I reproduced this problem with common used "ftp" as well ! -- V. |
From: Chirag K. <chi...@hp...> - 2004-06-25 14:59:54
|
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 04:27:45PM +0200, Valery A.Khamenya wrote: | What I have tried to say in prevoius post: I reproduced this problem=20 | with common | used "ftp" as well ! That would be easier to debug. Could you list the steps to reproduce the problem? Thanks! --=20 Chirag Kantharia, chi...@hp... |
From: Valery A.K. <va...@bi...> - 2004-06-28 07:27:35
|
Chirag Kantharia wrote: >On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 04:27:45PM +0200, Valery A.Khamenya wrote: >| What I have tried to say in prevoius post: I reproduced this problem >| with common >| used "ftp" as well ! > >That would be easier to debug. Could you list the steps to reproduce >the problem? Thanks! > > Scenario Nr.1 (as posted for mozilla) : 0. be sure that some slave nodes are started. 1. Start bash 2. Start "ftp ftp.suse.com" from the bash prompt 3. I can surf the SuSE ftp (because ftp uses http_proxy in some way, maybe indirect though) 4. Quit ftp 5. Start bash-ll 6. Start "ftp ftp.suse.com" from the bash-ll prompt 7. connection fails. Scenario Nr.2: 0. be sure that the master node is started *only*. 1. Start bash-ll 2. Start "ftp ftp.suse.com" from the bash-ll prompt 3. connection OK. 4. exit ftp 5. Let some slave node to join the cluster. 6. Start again "ftp ftp.suse.com" from the bash-ll prompt 7. connection fails. Both scenario were valid for me. regards, -- V. |
From: John H. <john@Calva.COM> - 2004-06-28 08:18:25
|
Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > > Scenario Nr.1 (as posted for mozilla) : > 0. be sure that some slave nodes are started. > 1. Start bash > 2. Start "ftp ftp.suse.com" from the bash prompt > 3. I can surf the SuSE ftp (because ftp uses http_proxy in some way, > maybe indirect though) > 4. Quit ftp > 5. Start bash-ll > 6. Start "ftp ftp.suse.com" from the bash-ll prompt > 7. connection fails. > > > Scenario Nr.2: > 0. be sure that the master node is started *only*. > 1. Start bash-ll > 2. Start "ftp ftp.suse.com" from the bash-ll prompt > 3. connection OK. > 4. exit ftp > 5. Let some slave node to join the cluster. > 6. Start again "ftp ftp.suse.com" from the bash-ll prompt > 7. connection fails. > Why do you think you have a proxy? What does this do: $ onnode 1 ftp.suse.com $ onnode 2 ftp.suse.com (use your "slave node" for the 2nd test). What is your network configuration? Do all the nodes have an "external" ethernet card, or just an "internal", cluster connect card? What does netstat -nr show on the "master node"? On the "slave nodes"? |
From: Valery A.K. <va...@bi...> - 2004-06-28 08:39:13
|
John Hughes wrote: > Why do you think you have a proxy? LOL, good idea to abuse our net admins :) Well, if I use mozilla under bash-ll and supply proxy settings explicitly then i can surf. Is it a proof in a way? > What does this do: > > $ onnode 1 ftp.suse.com connection is OK. > $ onnode 2 ftp.suse.com > (use your "slave node" for the 2nd test). connection fails. > What is your network configuration? > Do all the nodes have an "external" ethernet card, or just an > "internal", cluster connect card? here is my cvip.conf (if it helps): -------------------------------- <?xml version="1.0"?> <cvips> <cvip> <ip_addr>192.168.43.89</ip_addr> <director_node> <node_num>1</node_num> <garp_interface>eth0</garp_interface> <sync_interface>eth0</sync_interface> </director_node> <director_node> <node_num>4</node_num> <garp_interface>eth0</garp_interface> <sync_interface>eth0</sync_interface> </director_node> <real_server_node> <node_num>1</node_num> </real_server_node> <real_server_node> <node_num>2</node_num> </real_server_node> <real_server_node> <node_num>3</node_num> </real_server_node> <real_server_node> <node_num>4</node_num> </real_server_node> </cvip> </cvips> -------------------------------- > What does netstat -nr show on the "master node"? bash-2.05b$ onnode 1 netstat -nr Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 192.168.43.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 192.168.43.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo 0.0.0.0 192.168.43.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1 > On the "slave nodes"? bash-2.05b$ onnode 4 netstat -nr Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 192.168.43.89 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 lo 192.168.43.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.43.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo How could i help else? -- V. |
From: Aneesh K. K.V <ane...@hp...> - 2004-06-28 09:10:55
|
Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > Jo > > bash-2.05b$ onnode 4 netstat -nr > Kernel IP routing table > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window > irtt Iface > 192.168.43.89 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 > 0 lo > 192.168.43.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 > 0 eth0 > 192.168.43.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 > 0 eth0 > 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 > 0 lo > 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 > 0 lo > > I guess other nodes doesn't have a proper routing table entry. I found an issue with debian. On debian in order to remove the cluster interconnect address from being managed by the distro scripts, I added an information message saying that the particular address need to be removed from the /etc/network/interfaces. Now without this entry i am not sure whether routing table will be configured. Now if you have more than one card it will work fine. But with one card ONLY you may need to put that entry back so that default gateway will be setup as needed. BTW this is assuming that you are running Debian. -aneesh |
From: Valery A.K. <va...@bi...> - 2004-06-28 09:13:25
|
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > I guess other nodes doesn't have a proper routing table entry. I found > an issue with debian. On debian in order to remove the cluster > interconnect address from being managed by the distro scripts, I added > an information message saying that the particular address need to be > removed from the /etc/network/interfaces. Now without this entry i am > not sure whether routing table will be configured. Now if you have > more than one card it will work fine. But with one card ONLY you may > need to put that entry back so that default gateway will be setup as > needed. > > BTW this is assuming that you are running Debian. No. I run RH9 |
From: Valery A.K. <va...@bi...> - 2004-07-02 10:30:40
|
sorry for asking, but has anyone managed to reproduce the problem, say, with "ftp"? thanks, -- V. |
From: John H. <john@Calva.COM> - 2004-07-02 11:21:47
|
Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > sorry for asking, but has anyone managed to reproduce the problem, > say, with "ftp"? > > thanks, > -- > V. I'm sorry, I forgot to reply to your message. The problem is that you have no default route on the "slave" nodes. They have no direct accesss to your proxy (or the rest of the internet for that matter). Either put a 2nd ethernet card in the slave nodes and configure that to access the internet, or add a default route from your slave nodes to the master node(s) and configure the master node(s) for ip forwarding. If the slave nodes have private IP adresseses (as is normaly the case) you'll need to configure NAT as well. |
From: Valery A.K. <va...@bi...> - 2004-07-02 11:58:23
|
John Hughes wrote: > I'm sorry, I forgot to reply to your message. oh, no problem :) > The problem is that you have no default route on the "slave" nodes. > They have no direct accesss to your proxy (or the rest of the internet > for that matter). hm, sounds like in future it might be rather harmonically expessed in cvip.conf The solution you describe below actually is nothing more then just a delegation of some IP-related functionality from master to slaves, isn't it? > Either put a 2nd ethernet card in the slave nodes and configure that > to access the internet, this way is quite ...roundabout. Let's skip it please. > or add a default route from your slave nodes to the master node(s) and > configure > the master node(s) for ip forwarding. you'll need to configure NAT > as well. > If the slave nodes have private IP adresseses (as is normaly the case) This way sounds as more harmonic solution. Before trying it, I'd like to ask only: do you believe it might be possible to fix this situation in some "automated" way, say, just changing cvip.conf ? ...or maybe at least in the future? Now i find this 2nd way a bit tricky and the whole problem i find a bit unexpected/artificial for the OpenSSI ideology and for the clusterwide TCP/IP. Indeed, why should IP-accessability change if the process just migrated? Maybe i am wrong. BTW, I am still wondering how does then Mozilla access the proxy after I just specify proxy settings explicitly in Mozilla preferences? How could mozilla manage to access Internet via proxy without all those NAT/forwarding mentioned by you in your 2nd solution? Thank you a priori for your comments. -- V. |
From: Aneesh K. <ane...@gm...> - 2004-07-02 15:08:10
|
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 13:57:20 +0200, Valery A.Khamenya < > Now i find this 2nd way a bit tricky and the whole problem i find a bit > unexpected/artificial for the OpenSSI ideology and for the clusterwide > TCP/IP. > Indeed, why should IP-accessability change if the process just migrated? > Maybe i am wrong. > > BTW, I am still wondering how does then Mozilla access the proxy > after I just specify proxy settings explicitly in Mozilla preferences? > How could mozilla manage to access Internet via proxy without all > those NAT/forwarding mentioned by you in your 2nd solution? > I guess the proxy that you are using may be in the same subnet. To reach that you don't need a routing entry. In short Can you see if the below is correct. 1) You have a network that doesn't need proxy configuration to access the internet 2) You just need to route the packet to correct place . From there it will be masquraded to the internet 3) You master node has routing information to the same. So mozilla worked with direct connection to internet 4) You slave node doesn't have the correct routing information so it couldn't reach the machine that directed the packets to internet. But it worked when you specified the proxy manually because proxy is in the same subnet and to reach that you don't need the routing entry. 5). The fact that wget doesn't have the problem says env variable setting is work. I know wget use htt_proxy env variable. I don't think mozilla uses that -aneesh |
From: Valery A.K. <va...@bi...> - 2004-07-02 15:36:36
|
Aneesh Kumar wrote: >I guess the proxy that you are using may be in the same subnet. > yes, it is. >To reach that you don't need a routing entry. In short > >Can you see if the below is correct. >1) You have a network that doesn't need proxy configuration to >access the internet > > hm, i have cleared http_proxy env variable and found that wget is still working... that is surprising. It looks like my admins have changed politics, because 2 years ago http_proxy was needed to access Inet :-/ >2) You just need to route the packet to correct place . From there it >will be masquraded to the internet > > maybe. how could i check it? >3) You master node has routing information to the same. So mozilla >worked with direct connection to internet > > hm, OK. >4) You slave node doesn't have the correct routing information so it >couldn't reach the machine that directed the packets to internet. But >it worked when you specified the proxy manually because proxy is in >the same subnet and to reach that you don't need the routing entry. > > well, seems to be true. >5). The fact that wget doesn't have the problem says env variable >setting is work. I know wget use htt_proxy env variable. I don't think >mozilla uses that > > last puzzle piece is that wget works even if http_proxy env var is cleared :-) P.S. I will read your next answers, but will be able to answer myself on Monday only. |
From: Valery A.K. <va...@bi...> - 2004-07-02 13:35:17
|
John Hughes wrote: > [...]They have no direct accesss to your proxy (or the rest of the > internet for that matter). [...] > no. The following goes just fine: onnode 4 ping <ip_of_my_proxy> |
From: John H. <john@Calva.COM> - 2004-07-02 15:33:23
|
Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > John Hughes wrote: > >> [...]They have no direct accesss to your proxy (or the rest of the >> internet for that matter). [...] >> > no. > The following goes just fine: > onnode 4 ping <ip_of_my_proxy> > What does "onnode 4 traceroute <ip of your proxy>" show? What does "onnode 4 traceroute <some-ftp-site>" show? Once again, are you sure that ftp is using your proxy? What does strace -e trace=connect ftp <some-ftp-site> say? |
From: Valery A.K. <va...@bi...> - 2004-07-02 15:58:02
|
John Hughes wrote: > What does "onnode 4 traceroute <ip of your proxy>" show? everything is OK, i.e. accessed in 1 hop > > What does "onnode 4 traceroute <some-ftp-site>" show? Network is unreachable. > > Once again, are you sure that ftp is using your proxy? What does > > strace -e trace=connect ftp <some-ftp-site> > > say? > well-well-well. It says that finally it makes _direct_ connect to the external site. This connect to external site fails if i run: onnode 4 strace -e trace=connect ftp <some-ftp-site> Hm, OK, I am sorry for my misinterpretation, the network settings were changed by admins in last year or two :) Anyway, we have just reformulated the problem. I mean, all steps what i going to apply to fix this problem should be rather included in docs for other poor cluster users similar to me. ...or it would be even better if the fixing step will be autopmatically done via cvip.conf :-) Anyway, have a nice weekend, gurus, see you next week! -- Valery. |