On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 02:15:16PM -0700, Robinson, Eric wrote:
>
> Hi list - I'm a relative newbie to Pacemaker+CoroSync. I have a 2-node
> cluster that's working great and I want to add a 3-node cluster on the
> same network.
As much as you've invested time in creating your drawing, I'm not sure
list members have (what I suspect is a lot more) time to give you an
informed and accurate opinion about whether it's doable. :)
Why not just build it and tell us the answer?
> I want the new 3-node cluster to be configured such that node CLUSTER2_A
> shares resource R1 with node CLUSTER2_C, and node CLUSTER2_B shares
> resource R2 with node CLUSTER2_C. Node CLUSTER2_C would be the failover
> for both resources.
I might ask the question why not run R1 and R2 on the same node since
in the event of a failure of both R1 and R2 on their respective nodes,
all resources end up on CLUSTER2_C anyway?
If that's unacceptable risk, cluster failover pairs is a better solution.
> The proposed configuration looks like this...
>
>
> Existing 2-Node Cluster
>
> |----(198.51.100.0/30)---|
> | |
> |---------------------| |---------------------|
> | eth2 | | eth2 |
> | | | |
> | CLUSTER1_A | | CLUSTER1_B |
> | | | |
> | eth0 eth1 | | eth0 eth1 |
> | |--bond0--| | | |--bond0--| |
> | | | | | |
> |---------------------| |---------------------|
> | |
> | |
> ----------------------------(192.168.10.0/24)------------------------
> | | |
> | | |
> |-----------------| |-----------------| |---------------------|
> | | | | | | | | |
> | |--bond0--| | | |--bond0--| | | |--bond0--| |
> | eth0 eth1 | | eth0 eth1 | | eth0 eth1 |
> | | | | | |
> | CLUSTER2_A | | CLUSTER2_B | | CLUSTER2_C |
> | | | | | |
> | eth2 | | eth3 | | eth3 eth2 |
> |-----------------| |-----------------| |---------------------|
> | | | |
> | |-(198.51.100.4/30)-| |
> | |
> |------(198.51.100.8/30)-----------------------------------|
>
> New 3-Node Cluster
>
>
> The interface sections on existing CLUSTER1 look like this...
>
> interface {
> ringnumber: 0
> bindnetaddr: 192.168.10.0
> mcastaddr: 226.94.1.1
> mcastport: 4000
> }
>
> interface {
> ringnumber: 1
> bindnetaddr: 198.51.100.0
> mcastaddr: 226.94.1.1
> mcastport: 4000
> }
>
> I'm thinking the interface sections on CLUSTER2 need to look like
> this...
>
>
> interface {
> ringnumber: 0
> bindnetaddr: 192.168.10.0
> mcastaddr: 226.94.1.2
> mcastport: 4002
> }
>
> interface {
> ringnumber: 1
> bindnetaddr: 198.51.100.4
> mcastaddr: 226.94.1.2
> mcastport: 4002
> }
> interface {
> ringnumber: 2
> bindnetaddr: 198.51.100.8
> mcastaddr: 226.94.1.2
> mcastport: 4002
> }
>
> Does that look correct? Is what I want to do doable?
>
> --
> Eric Robinson
>
>
> Disclaimer - October 21, 2010
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
> solely for [email protected]. If you are not the named
> addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy or alter this email.
> Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
> and might not represent those of Physicians' Managed Care or Physician Select
> Management. Warning: Although Physicians' Managed Care or Physician Select
> Management has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present
> in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or
> damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.
> This disclaimer was added by Policy Patrol: http://www.policypatrol.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Openais mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais
--
regards,
-tony
_______________________________________________
Openais mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais
