Good afternoon.
After a long search on the forums decided to write here.
I have a problem with the cluster:
Cluster Mode: High Availability (Active Up) with IGMP Membership
ID Unique Address Assigned Load State Name
1 (local) 172.29.0.185 0% DOWN BV09-200-WAN-FW-003
2 172.29.0.186 100% ACTIVE BV09-200-WAN-FW-004
Active PNOTEs: IAC
Last member state change event:
Event Code: CLUS-110805
State change: ACTIVE(!) -> DOWN
Reason for state change: Incorrect configuration - Local cluster member has fewer cluster interfaces configured compared to other cluster member(s)
Event time: Fri Feb 18 13:04:12 2022
Last cluster failover event:
Transition to new ACTIVE: Member 1 -> Member 2
Reason: Incorrect configuration - Local cluster member has fewer cluster interfaces configured compared to other cluster member(s)
Event time: Fri Feb 18 13:04:39 2022
Cluster failover count:
Failover counter: 3
Time of counter reset: Mon Apr 12 11:37:18 2021 (reboot)
For clarity, the output of the same command from the second cluster member:
Cluster Mode: High Availability (Active Up) with IGMP Membership
ID Unique Address Assigned Load State Name
1 172.29.0.185 0% DOWN BV09-200-WAN-FW-003
2 (local) 172.29.0.186 100% ACTIVE BV09-200-WAN-FW-004
Active PNOTEs: None
Last member state change event:
Event Code: CLUS-114904
State change: ACTIVE(!) -> ACTIVE
Reason for state change: Reason for ACTIVE! alert has been resolved
Event time: Fri Feb 18 13:14:04 2022
Last cluster failover event:
Transition to new ACTIVE: Member 1 -> Member 2
Reason: Incorrect configuration - Local cluster member has fewer cluster interfaces configured compared to other cluster member(s)
Event time: Fri Feb 18 13:04:39 2022
Cluster failover count:
Failover counter: 3
Time of counter reset: Mon Apr 12 11:37:18 2021 (reboot)
Seeing this, I decided to look at the list of interfaces. And found some inconsistencies.
Interfaces on the problematic cluster member:
[Expert@200-BV09-WAN-FW-003:0]# cphaprob -a if
CCP mode: Manual (Unicast)
Required interfaces: 3
Required secured interfaces: 1
Interface Name: Status:
eth5 (S) UP
Mgmt Non-Monitored
eth1-01 UP
eth1-02 UP
S - sync, LM - link monitor, HA/LS - bond type
Virtual cluster interfaces: 12
eth1-01 172.27.0.65
eth1-02 172.28.0.65
bond10.300 172.18.10.1
bond10.1041 10.10.41.1
bond10.1042 10.10.42.1
bond10.1031 10.10.31.1
bond10.1032 10.10.32.1
bond10.1033 10.10.33.1
bond10.1047 10.10.47.1
bond10.1048 10.10.48.1
bond10.1044 10.10.44.1
bond10.1045 10.10.45.1
Interfaces on an Active Cluster Member:
CCP mode: Manual (Unicast)
Required interfaces: 5
Required secured interfaces: 1
Interface Name: Status:
eth5 (S) UP
Mgmt Non-Monitored
eth1-01 UP
eth1-02 UP
bond10.300 (LS) UP
bond10.1048 (LS) UP
S - sync, LM - link monitor, HA/LS - bond type
Virtual cluster interfaces: 12
eth1-01 172.27.0.65
eth1-02 172.28.0.65
bond10.300 172.18.10.1
bond10.1041 10.10.41.1
bond10.1042 10.10.42.1
bond10.1031 10.10.31.1
bond10.1032 10.10.32.1
bond10.1033 10.10.33.1
bond10.1047 10.10.47.1
bond10.1048 10.10.48.1
bond10.1044 10.10.44.1
bond10.1045 10.10.45.1
For some reason, there are no bond interfaces on the problematic cluster member in load sharing mode.
The cluster is connected by these bond interfaces to one stack of switches. But to different aggregation groups. This is not the only location. At other locations, the topology is identical and there are no problems with the cluster.
I will be very grateful for your help.
Have a good day!