Hi Honza, Thank you for comments.
> It's not necessary, because it is expected to replace failed part as > soon as possible and chance that two cables fails is very small. Also > RRP + bonding can be used for super critical systems (so there are two > bond interfaces (each with two nics) and each of them is part of rrp). Oh...It is great configuration...super critical systems. > > Is there the plan solving this problem in the future in corosync? > > Because it is specifications of corosync, there is not the plan to solve > > this problem in the future? > > I was thinking about that. RRP in corosync is implementation of > http://corosync.github.com/corosync/doc/icdcs02.ps.gz and this paper > turn out to be really more academic then useful for practice. On the > other hand, I don't see any good in reimplementing bonding inside > corosync, because there is real bonding. > > Anyway, give a try to bonding, I'm pretty sure it solve problems you are > hitting. We use bonding without using the rrp mode. Probably the problem will not happen. When a user cannot prepare for much NIC, we could consider recommending constitution not to use rrp mode. * The environment that cannot make bonding two. Many Thanks! Hideo Yamauchi. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
