Troubleshootig LTM issues
Hi all. I'm new to load balancers and F5. In preparation for arrival of F5 hardware, I've been working with F5 evaluation licenses (usually, the 45-day licenses provided by F5 Sales staff).
Note that I've previously configured virtual servers and have had them up and running in a lab environment. Currently, I'm working with a different lab environment.
Today, I've run into a few problems that I'm hoping the community can help me out with.
I am using a Mac Mini and VMware Fusion. I created five virtual networks. The first four are each "host only" so that only the VMs and the host can talk to one another. The fifth is a NAT with the host so that, when these connections are enabled, I can activate Microsoft trial licenses.
VMs created:
- a MS 2012 R2 domain controller; acts as DNS server as well - two MS 2012 R2 member servers with IIS installed - a Windows 8 workstation - two BIG-IP v11.4.0 systems (I have not yet installed hotfixes)
The BIG-IPs are in a ConfigSync pair. Two traffic groups were created.
Created two Nodes a.b.c.71 and .72. Changed Node Default Monitor to icmp. Created Pool-01 and made .71 and .72 nodes members. Enabled http monitor for the pool. Created a virtual server for .81, gave it Pool-01, and tied it to Traffic Group 2. The workstation can get to the web pages on .71 and .72. Can ping .81 (the virtual server). The two BIG-IPs are in sync.
Issue 01: BIG-IP-01's network map shows everything green while BIG-IP-02's network map shows green except for .72 which is a red diamond.
Issue 02: The workstation can get to the web pages for .71 and .72 but going to .81 results in "the page cannot be displayed."
I've tried looking in log files on the BIG-IP devices but have not found any related entries.
Questions:
- what logs should I be checking? What log shows connection request and hand-offs? What log is related to monitors? - any idea why BIG-IP-02 would show down for a http check of .72 while BIG-IP-01 says the same check is good? - any idea where the problem with the .81 virtual server and its back-ends may lie?
Thank you,
John