On 15/03/10 09:53, Colin wrote: > Hi All, > > in a test that we started last week we have two Pacemaker+Corosync > clusters, each with three hosts, where all six hosts are on the same > network(s). The two clusters are identically configured, with one > execption: the mcastport is 688 for one, and 689 for the other. > > This morning I found the clusters in a strange state, none of the > hosts could see any of the others, i.e. Pacemaker output was "as if" > Corosync wasn't running on the other nodes, although the network was > fine, as I could easily verify with a ping etc. > > I then noticed in the lsof output that Corosync seems to also use the > port below the configured mcastport, which leads me to my questions: > > Is this normal? It doesn't seem to be documented in > http://corosync.org/doku.php?id=faq:configure_openais and > corosync.conf(5). > Is this overlap created by the additional port a likely cause for the > cluster conking out? >
Yes, corosync uses both port <n> and <n-1>, so if you have two clusters in the same multicast address you will need to take this into account. I haven't tried setting up cluster like you describe but I can easily imagine that using ports like that would cause extreme confusion! Chrissie _______________________________________________ Openais mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais
