On 01/08/2013 09:47 AM, Michael Schwartzkopff wrote: > Am Dienstag, 8. Januar 2013, 15:43:25 schrieb Andreas Mock: >> Hi together, >> >> a question concerning corosync communications. >> >> What would you recommend: Redundant rings over >> several seperate ethernet connections or using bonding >> of several ethernet devices to get redundancy? >> (Putting one ring ontop of the bonding device) >> >> Where can I read about the current state of ring >> autorecovery in corosync? >> >> Best regards >> Andreas Mock > > I'd prefer bonding. But beware, there are many pitfals in bonding. You have > to > choose the right mode test failure detection really good. I had a hard time > with several interfaces not playing well with bonding (mii, ...). > > Perhaps you end up in configuring two separate rings again. > > state of a ring: > corosync-cfgtool -s
The only supported bonding is Active/Passive mode=1. I use this extensively in my clusters. -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education? _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
