Hi Honza, Thank you for comments.
>> In addition, is there a point to be careful about when we continue using > "ative"? > > Only (but big) problem with active is that active doesn't make progress > if one of link fails until link is marked as failed. Passive always > makes progress (= works) even link is failed and failure is not yet > detected. Does this mean that "actvie" setting delays the delivery to the node of the message of the normal interface until the interface that failed becomes "faulty"? Does it mean that the reconstitution of the cluster may happen until an inoperative interface becomes "faulty" by this delay? If it is this phenomenon, I can understand a problem. > But as long as you are happy with rrp active, use active. Because the number of the nodes that we treated was not so big, a big problem of "active" has not occurred. I argue with a member and think about the use of future "rrp_mode". Best Regards, Hideo Yamauchi. ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jan Friesse <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; COROSYNC <[email protected]> > Cc: > Date: 2015/7/27, Mon 18:46 > Subject: Re: [corosync] [Question] About "Add note about rrp active beeing > unsupported". of corosync2.3.5 > > [email protected] napsal(a): >> Hi All, >> >> I thank for release of corosync2.3.5. >> >> We used the "rrp_mode:active" setting so far. >> >> The "rrp_mode: active" did not seem to be recommended when I saw > release note of corosync2.3.5. >> >> >> What is the cause that was not recommended from this time? > > It was actually never recommended, only change it's now noted in the man > page. > > >> In addition, is there a point to be careful about when we continue using > "ative"? > > Only (but big) problem with active is that active doesn't make progress > if one of link fails until link is marked as failed. Passive always > makes progress (= works) even link is failed and failure is not yet > detected. > > But as long as you are happy with rrp active, use active. > > Regards, > Honza > >> >> * We want to know a problem and the influence that were not recommended > in detail. >> >> >> Best Regards, >> Hideo Yamauchi. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
