Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

perfsonar-user - Re: [perfsonar-user] Re: Various breakages after 3.5 upgrade

Subject: perfSONAR User Q&A and Other Discussion

List archive

Re: [perfsonar-user] Re: Various breakages after 3.5 upgrade


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Brian Candler <>
  • To:
  • Cc: "" <>
  • Subject: Re: [perfsonar-user] Re: Various breakages after 3.5 upgrade
  • Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:23:22 +0000
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=subject:to :references:cc:from:message-id:date:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=gn2jVNpE1W57rVYCJJxoGLqAR8MRTHsP anw9zvZ5Kguaz0YmIf6DU8QpcloN4bpEhRoYF7w7jpTlSCFKUa4PAlHKs68iwRlq /AigCFjjYakRss/r6oD9CTSr2zPnotxImfn3asqqFUoVf2/oSh8yuqiH12EUdflD iKfeMJMAhA8=

On 04/11/2015 17:48, Brian Tierney wrote:
(3) From the time of the upgrade, ping tests have stopped working (the dotted yellow line for "reverse ping" has just stopped)

But Configuration > Tests still shows the section (which I called "Local ping test"), and I can see the test is still there.

This problem still exists. No new ping tests are shown, on either v4 or v6. But if I look back in history I can see ping tests were working up until 30th September, when the node updated to perfsonar 3.5. So this is a problem of data collection, not graph rendering.

ping tests would still be useful for basic connectivity checks to devices where owampd is not available.

Thats odd. Can you send your regualr_testing.log ? Do you see errors there?
I am getting errors relating to IPv6 pings, but can't see anything relating to IPv4 pings (although neither is working)

I see these two errors every 5 minutes:

2015/11/05 16:08:33 (9353) ERROR> MeasurementArchiveChild.pm:209 perfSONAR_PS::RegularTesting::Master::MeasurementArchiveChild::handle_results - Problem storing results: Error writing metadata: Error running test from cov-client-1.network.cityfibre.com  with output bwctl: start_endpoint: 3655694218.696008
bwctl: run_endpoint: receiver: 2001:db8:0:2::254
bwctl: run_endpoint: sender: 2001:db8:1:64::252
bwctl: exec_line: ping6 -c 10 -i 1.000000 -s 1000 -m 255 -S 2001:db8:1:64::252 2001:db8:0:2::254
bwctl: run_tool: tester: ping
bwctl: run_tool: receiver: 2001:db8:0:2::254
bwctl: run_tool: sender: 2001:db8:1:64::252
bwctl: start_tool: 3655694224.574295
ping6: setsockopt(IPV6_RECVPATHMTU): Operation not permitted
bwctl: local tool exited before expected with status=1
bwctl: stop_tool: 3655694224.580083
bwctl: stop_endpoint: 3655694227.584122
2015/11/05 16:08:33 (9353) ERROR> MeasurementArchiveChild.pm:125 perfSONAR_PS::RegularTesting::Master::MeasurementArchiveChild::__ANON__ - Problem handling test results: Problem storing results: Error writing metadata: Error running test from cov-client-1.network.cityfibre.com  with output bwctl: start_endpoint: 3655694218.696008
bwctl: run_endpoint: receiver: 2001:db8:0:2::254
bwctl: run_endpoint: sender: 2001:db8:1:64::252
bwctl: exec_line: ping6 -c 10 -i 1.000000 -s 1000 -m 255 -S 2001:db8:1:64::252 2001:db8:0:2::254
bwctl: run_tool: tester: ping
bwctl: run_tool: receiver: 2001:db8:0:2::254
bwctl: run_tool: sender: 2001:db8:1:64::252
bwctl: start_tool: 3655694224.574295
ping6: setsockopt(IPV6_RECVPATHMTU): Operation not permitted
bwctl: local tool exited before expected with status=1
bwctl: stop_tool: 3655694224.580083
bwctl: stop_endpoint: 3655694227.584122

If I try to run the exec_line command by hand, I don't get the MTU error but an "invalid option" error:

$ ping6 -c 10 -i 1.000000 -s 1000 -m 255 -S 2001:db8:1:64::252 2001:db8:0:2::254
ping6: invalid option -- 'm'
Usage: ping6 [-LUdfnqrvVaA] [-c count] [-i interval] [-w deadline]
             [-p pattern] [-s packetsize] [-t ttl] [-I interface]
             [-M mtu discovery hint] [-S sndbuf]
             [-F flow label] [-Q traffic class] [hop1 ...] destination

It looks like the -m (mark) option is for newer Linux only.

If I check on the perfsonar 3.4 regular_testing.log for exec_line I see a different set of options being used:

bwctl: exec_line: ping6 -c 10 -i 1.000000 -W 1 -s 1000 -t 255 -I 2001:db8:0:2::2 2001:db8:1:64::30

Could it be that -m 255 should be -t 255 ?

Regards,

Brian.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page