On 9/14/20 10:27 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote: >> I wonder if something like pacemaker sbd could be implemented in proxmox as >> extra layer of protection ? > >>> AFAIK Thomas already has patches to implement active fencing. > >>> But IMHO this will not solve the corosync problems.. > > Yes, sure. I'm really to have to 2 differents sources of verification, with > different path/software, to avoid this kind of bug. > (shit happens, murphy law ;)
would then need at least three, and if one has a bug flooding the network in a lot of setups (not having beefy switches like you ;) the other two will be taken down also, either as memory or the system stack gets overloaded. > > as we say in French "ceinture & bretelles" -> "belt and braces" > > > BTW, > a user have reported new corosync problem here: > https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/proxmox-6-2-corosync-3-rare-and-spontaneous-disruptive-udp-5405-storm-flood.75871 > (Sound like the bug that I have 6month ago, with corosync bug flooding a lof > of udp packets, but not the same bug I have here) Did you get in contact with knet/corosync devs about this? Because, it may well be something their stack is better at handling it, maybe there's also really still a bug, or bad behaviour on some edge cases... _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
