Hello, based on pacemaker 1.0.8 + corosync 1.2.2, having two network interfaces to dedicate to cluster communication, what is better/safer at this moment:
a) only one corosync ring on top of a bond interface b) two different rings, each one associated with one interface ? Question based also on corosync roadmap document, containing this goal: Improved redundant ring support: The redundant ring support in corosync needs more testing, especially around boundary areas such as 0x7FFFFFFF seqids. Redundant ring should have an automatic way to recover from failures by periodically checking the link and instituting a recovery of the ring. BTW: if a link fail, what is the current "manual" command to notify the CCE when it becomes available again? Thanks, Gianluca
_______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: [email protected] http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
