On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 11:24 +0100, Colin wrote: > 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!) >
Good point. Better documentation is incoming. Regards -steve > Colin > _______________________________________________ > Openais mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais _______________________________________________ Openais mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais
