On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Christine Caulfield <[email protected]> wrote: > 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!
Thanks for the fast reply, I'll change the configuration accordingly. (And please someone update the documentation to state that not only the actually configured port is used!) Colin _______________________________________________ Openais mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais
