On 01/27/2011 03:36 AM, pebcak wrote: > Hi, > > On 01/27/2011 07:08 AM, jiaju liu wrote: >> I want use IB, corosync support it? > > corosync supports IB. However in my experience IB support in corosync is > pretty much unstable, if you need a stable and performant solution > I wouldn't recommend corosync with IB. > > I tried to run sheepdog with IB. sheepdog itself was pretty much stable, > corosync was not. > > I know people on this mailinglist will tell you otherwise, but that's my > experience. I had a test enviroment with ethernet (which was rock solid) > and later got one with IB. We decided against corosync & sheepdog > because of the sever problems in our IB test enviroment with corosync. > > Cheers > >>
Sorry to hear you had a bad experience with IB and Corosync. In my personal testing, newer kernels/drivers/hardware (IE Fedora 14, RHEL6 + Mellanox ConnectX VPI hardware) work perfectly, while older kernels (ie RHEL5, CentOS5, etc) have some serious bugs wrt IB & corosync's use model. Unfortunately user space software can't fix bugs in kernel code. For those that follow the rdma list, there have over last couple years been lots of bug reports regarding IGMP/multicast, and the RDMA community has fixed these issues when they arise. Because of the rdma dev's model, there is lag time between bugs fixed in the rdma tree and bugs fixed in kernel.org. This lag time is further increased by distro lag time from kernel.org. Hope the information helps people make an informed decision. Regards -steve >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ Openais mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais
