On 12/1/12 8:21 AM, Hermes Flying wrote: > Thanks for your reply. > First of all I didn't get if the VIP will migrate if Tomcat or load > balancer also fails. It will right? If you configure Pacemaker correctly, yes. > Also if I understand this correctly, I can end up with VIP on both > nodes if corosync fails due to network failure. And you suggest > redundant communication paths to avoid this. > But if I understand the problem, if the VIP runs in my linux-1 and > pacemaker is somehow via corosync ready to take over on failure from > linux-2, if there is a network failure (despite redundant > communication paths, unless you guys recommend some specific topology > to the people using Pacemaker that you are 100% full proof) how can > you detect if the other node is actually crashed or just corosync > fails? In this case won't the linux-2 also "wakeup" to take VIP? That is what fencing is for. If linux-1 goes offline from the perspective of linux-2, linux-2 will attempt to crash/power-cycle/power-off linux-1 to ensure it is really dead. Any resource previously running on linux-1 will be started on linux-2.
Usually with a two node config I take two NICs on each box and connect them directly to the other one - Also would work if you had two separate switches you could run each path through. Then I use Linux NIC bonding to provide redundancy and run corosync over the bond interface. _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
