On Oct 24, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Robinson, Eric wrote: >>> That way, if something happens to switched network #1, >>> Corosync can still track node status through switched >>> net #2. >>> >>> Once this configuration is built, I can use Pacemaker >>> with resource constraints to ensure that resource R1 >>> can only run on SERVER_A or SERVER_C (usually A) and >>> resource R2 can only run on SERVER_B and SERVER_C (usually >>> C) and SERVER_C acts as a failover for both resources. > >> That's correct. And since it's a 3 node cluster you >> can make this using simple constraints like this: > >> location R1-prefers-A R1 100: SERVER_A >> location R1-not-B -inf: SERVER_B >> location R2-prefers-B R2 100: SERVER_B >> location R2-not-A -inf: SERVER_A > > Excellent, it feels good to have finally wrapped my head around this. > > But now could someone please elaborate on Dejan Muhamedagic's original > comment that started the thread? What does "redundant rings are still > not there" mean? Is a three-node cluster an unreliable setup because > Corosync and/or Pacemaker are not really ready for that? >
not Pacemaker - Corosync. I agree with Dejan. I also use Heartbeat for clusters communication layer. Vadym _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
