On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 12:46:10 +0200 "Ulrich Windl" <ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
> >>> Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <j...@dalibo.com> schrieb am 15.07.2021 um > 10:09 in > Nachricht <20210715100930.06b45f5b@firost>: > > Hi all, > > > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 19:55:30 +0000 (UTC) > > Strahil Nikolov <hunter86...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> In some cases the third location has a single IP and it makes sense to use > >> > > > it > >> as QDevice. If it has multiple network connections to that location ‑ use > a > >> full blown node . > > > > By the way, what's the point of multiple rings in corosync when we can > setup > > bonding or teaming on OS layer? > > Good question: back in the times of HP-UX and ServiceGuard we had two > networks, each using bonding to ensure cluster communication. > With Linux and pacemaker we have the same, BUT corosync (as of SLES15 SP2) > seems to use them not as redundancy, but in parallel. Indeed, it does. That's what I've experienced as well with a customer where bandwidth on LAN was free, but billed on the WAN interface. When I dug for answers, I found a paper on TOTEM explaining the protocol was using both rings in a kind of round robin fashion. I don't remember the fine details though. Regards, _______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
