LMS & Solaris IPMP

Answered Question
Jul 8th, 2008

It appears as long as LMS is bound to the one single floating virtual IP addr in gatekeeper.cfg, it should work. Nonetheless I'm wondering if there's any caveat. Does LMS play nice with IPMP's outbound load spreading feature, if at all?

I have this problem too.
0 votes
Correct Answer by Joe Clarke about 8 years 5 months ago

Funny you should ask. I was just working on an IPMP SR, and found one bug in CSTM which I needed to patch, CSCsr20682. You will also want to set SS_CHECKIP=false in /opt/CSCOpx/lib/classpath/ss.properties.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 5 (2 ratings)
Loading.
Correct Answer
Joe Clarke Tue, 07/08/2008 - 19:03

Funny you should ask. I was just working on an IPMP SR, and found one bug in CSTM which I needed to patch, CSCsr20682. You will also want to set SS_CHECKIP=false in /opt/CSCOpx/lib/classpath/ss.properties.

yjdabear Wed, 07/09/2008 - 05:17

Thanks! Which version of LMS does this bug apply to? How do I obtain this patch, for LMS 3.0 or 3.1?

Do we need to disable IPMP's outbound load spreading feature (if it's possible)?

Joe Clarke Wed, 07/09/2008 - 07:35

The bug applies to all versions of LMS 2.5 and higher, but it was found in LMS 2.6. The patch is available via the TAC. While I don't think load sharing would cause issues, we never tested LMS with IPMP, and the more features you use, the more potential there are for bugs.

yjdabear Wed, 07/09/2008 - 10:51

Just thought of another question: If we have IPMP set up beforehand and assign DNS names to the IP addrs on the two physical interfaces, does LMS pick one of these two hostnames and stick it in files such as /opt/CSCOpx/campus/etc/cwsi/ANIServer.properties, which will require manually adjusting later to the DNS name for the virtual one? Is there a list of such files that'd be modified?

Joe Clarke Wed, 07/09/2008 - 10:53

LMS will use the servers hostname (basically the output of the hostname command) everywhere a hostname is required. If this changes for ANY reason, you need to follow the hostname change procedures. ANIServer.properties does not need to be changed as part of that, but you can if you like.

yjdabear Thu, 07/10/2008 - 04:51

I got the patch (ctm.jar) from TAC, but without any installation steps. It's normally fine, except there're eight ctm.jars in /opt/CSCOpx/. Which one(s) should this replace?

./htdocs/WEB-INF/lib/ctm.jar

./MDC/tomcat/webapps/campus/WEB-INF/lib/ctm.jar

./MDC/tomcat/webapps/cwhp/WEB-INF/lib/ctm.jar

./MDC/tomcat/webapps/CVng/WEB-INF/lib/ctm.jar

./MDC/tomcat/webapps/rme/WEB-INF/lib/ctm.jar

./MDC/tomcat/webapps/cmapps/WEB-INF/lib/ctm.jar

./MDC/tomcat/webapps/ipm/WEB-INF/lib/ctm.jar

./MDC/tomcat/shared/lib/ctm.jar

Joe Clarke Thu, 07/10/2008 - 06:39

What is the checksum of the file you received, and what version of LMS are you using?

yjdabear Thu, 07/10/2008 - 06:57

cksum ctm.jar

3658201325 146109 ctm.jar

I'm using LMS 2.6 (CS 3.0.6), but I only want the patch for LMX 3.0 or 3.1, which TAC said this file was for.

Joe Clarke Thu, 07/10/2008 - 07:03

This is only for LMS 3.0.1, and will not work with any other version. The file is designed to replace /opt/CSCOpx/MDC/tomcat/webapps/cwhp/WEB-INF/lib/ctm.jar.

yjdabear Thu, 07/10/2008 - 07:05

Does it apply to 3.1? Does 3.1 need it? That's the version I'm going to.

Joe Clarke Thu, 07/10/2008 - 07:05

LMS 3.1 will require the patch, but this does NOT apply to LMS 3.1, ONLY 3.0.1.

yjdabear Thu, 07/10/2008 - 07:08

Is there a patch available for 3.1 then? If so, can you provide the checksum so I can compare once I get the corresponding patch?

yjdabear Thu, 07/10/2008 - 07:16

Any ETA on having one available for public consumption, so I can check back with TAC again?

Joe Clarke Thu, 07/10/2008 - 07:19

A service request would need to be opened requesting such a patch.

yjdabear Thu, 07/10/2008 - 07:25

I'm not following: Do you mean a "service request" (as in a TAC case???) in order to have a patch produced for 3.1, or simply to obtain the patch?

Joe Clarke Thu, 07/10/2008 - 07:29

A TAC service request would need to be created requesting the patch for 3.1. This is how the 3.0.1 was built.

yjdabear Thu, 07/10/2008 - 07:37

Got it, will do. I assume this is because the bug was filed only against 3.0.1. Do I need concrete evidence (such as a live 3.1 install) to prove the need of a patch?

Joe Clarke Thu, 07/10/2008 - 07:40

If you want, as this way you can validate the patch. However, it's not required.

Actions

This Discussion