Hi, thank you all for the fast answers.
The last thing I knew was exactly that corosync couldn't recover rings automatically. So, this doesn't seem to be a restriction anymore. Best regards Andreas Mock -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Digimer [mailto:[email protected]] Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. Januar 2013 16:03 An: General Linux-HA mailing list Cc: Andreas Mock Betreff: Re: [Linux-HA] corosync and network redundancy On 01/08/2013 09:43 AM, Andreas Mock wrote: > 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 If you use two separate networks for RRP, and each network sits on top of a mode=1 bond, then you will have the highest redundancy. I do this with stacked switches where each leg of the bond is in a different switch, so I can survive total switch failures as well as individual link losses. RRP now recovers to the first ring automatically. Older versions of corosync didn't, but it was fixed some time ago. -- 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
