On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 23:16 +0200, Gianluca Cecchi wrote: > 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: > bonding
> > 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? corosync-cfgtool -r > > > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
