Question. Is it better to use card bonding and a single ring or unbonded interfaces and dual rings?
Sent from my iPhone On 14/04/2010, at 4:04 AM, Steven Dake <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 19:31 +0100, Tom Pride wrote: >> Just to clarify, when I ifdown eth1 corosync does detect a failure >> and >> it does mark the ring as faulty. Are you saying that when I use ifup >> corosync can't work out that the interface is back up and >> communications can resume when I run corosync-cfgtool -r ? Would I >> therefore get a different result if I introduced the failure by >> physically unplugging the cat5 from the server and then physically >> reconnecting the cat5? What about if I shut down the port on the >> switch it is connected to? >> > > Yes this is correct. You should see proper operation if the network > link is lost normally (ie the nic fails, the link fails, the switch > port > fails, the switch fails). > > When an interface is ifdowned, it sends a special event to corosync, > which corosync captures and causes special behavior to occur (the > binding to 127.0.0.1). Pulling a network cable doesn't cause this > same > event to occur. This rebind behavior is incompatible with redundant > ring. > > Regards > -steve > >> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Steven Dake <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 17:04 +0100, Tom Pride wrote: >>> Hi Steve, >>> >>> Thanks for the suggestion but that didn't work. I'm not >> sure if you >>> read my entire post or not, but the two redundant rings that >> I have >>> configured, both work without a problem until I introduce a >> fault by >>> shutting down eth1 on one of the nodes. This then causes >> the cluster >>> to mark ringid 0 as FAULTY. When I then reactivate eth1 and >> both >>> nodes can once again ping each other over the network, I >> then run _______________________________________________ Openais mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais
