[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Linux-cluster] corosync issue with two interface directives



Hi,

On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Ben Shepherd <bshepherd voxeo com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> OK so how does that affect the fail over. Each f the networks is important
> if we lose ring 0 or ring 1 we need to fail over.
>
> If I have the config stated below:
> # Please read the corosync.conf.5 manual page
> compatibility: whitetank
>
> totem {
> version: 2
> secauth: on
> threads: 0

If secauth: on -> you need to set threads > 0 (normally threads ==
number_of_cpus_on_the_system)

> interface {
> ringnumber: 0
> bindnetaddr: 10.251.96.160
> #broadcast: yes
> mcastaddr: 239.254.6.8
>                 mcastport: 5405
> ttl: 1
> }
> interface {
> ringnumber: 1
> bindnetaddr: 10.122.147.192
> #broadcast: yes
> mcastaddr: 239.254.6.9
>                 mcastport: 5405
> ttl: 1
> }
> }
>
> logging {
> fileline: off
> to_stderr: no
> to_logfile: yes
> to_syslog: yes
> logfile: /var/log/cluster/corosync.log
> debug: off
> timestamp: on
> logger_subsys {
> subsys: AMF
> debug: off
> }
> }
>
> amf {
> mode: disabled
> }
>
> And I pull out the cable for the interface on ring 1 will it fail over ? Or
> will it use ring 1 only if ring 0 fails.

You also need to add rrp_mode: active/passive for redundancy when
using more than one ringnumber. When enabled, if you pull the cable on
one of the network links, the other remaining network will continue to
work, therefore the cluster manager will still have a path to
communicate over -> no failover (from a messaging and membership
standpoint).

By default (your case) rrp_mode is set to none (no redundancy - you
have redundant network communication, but it's not being used) so when
you pull either cable you might:
a) failover
b) not failover

a -> might happen if you pull the cable corosync uses for
communication at the moment (that may be the one set in ringnumber 0 -
not 100% sure)
b -> might happen if you pull the cable corosync doesn't use for
communication (-EDONTKNOW)

>
> I read the documentation but it is less than clear :-)
>
> I would just do it and pull the cable out but sadly it requires me to fly to
> Vienna to do it seems a little extravagant.

And if you think about doing something remotely to the network cards,
have a look at http://corosync.org/doku.php?id=faq:ifdown before you
do.

>
> From: emmanuel segura <emi2fast gmail com>
> Reply-To: linux clustering <linux-cluster redhat com>
> Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 20:14:14 +0100
> To: linux clustering <linux-cluster redhat com>
> Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] corosync issue with two interface directives
>
> I think the ringnumber must be diferent for every network
>
> 2012/2/5 Ben Shepherd <bshepherd voxeo com>
>>
>> Currently have a 2 node cluster. We configured HA on 1 network to take
>> inbound traffic with multicast in corosync  and 1 VIP.
>>
>> This works fine (most of the time sometimes if you take the cable out both
>> interfaces end up with the VIP but that is another story)

The above happens because you have (see below)

>> Customer now has another network on which they want to take traffic. I
>> have assigned the VIP on
>>
>> node lxnivrr45.at.inside
>> node lxnivrr46.at.inside
>> primitive failover-ip1 ocf:heartbeat:IPaddr
>> params ip=" 10.251.96.185"
>> op monitor interval="10s"
>>  primitive failover-ip2 ocf:heartbeat:IPaddr
>> params ip="10.2.150.201"
>> op monitor interval="10s"
>> colocation failover-ips inf: failover-ip1 failover-ip2
>> property $id="cib-bootstrap-options"
>> dc-version="1.1.5-5.el6-01e86afaaa6d4a8c4836f68df80ababd6ca3902f"
>> cluster-infrastructure="openais"
>> expected-quorum-votes="2"
>> no-quorum-policy="ignore"
>> stonith-enabled="false"

^^ this set to false (see above)

Regards,
Dan


>> rsc_defaults $id="rsc-options"
>> resource-stickiness="100"
>>
>> Current Corosync configuration is:
>>
>> # Please read the corosync.conf.5 manual page
>> compatibility: whitetank
>>
>> totem {
>> version: 2
>> secauth: on
>> threads: 0
>> interface {
>> ringnumber: 0
>> bindnetaddr: 10.251.96.160
>> #broadcast: yes
>> mcastaddr: 239.254.6.8
>>                 mcastport: 5405
>> ttl: 1
>> }
>> }
>>
>> logging {
>> fileline: off
>> to_stderr: no
>> to_logfile: yes
>> to_syslog: yes
>> logfile: /var/log/cluster/corosync.log
>> debug: off
>> timestamp: on
>> logger_subsys {
>> subsys: AMF
>> debug: off
>> }
>> }
>>
>> amf {
>> mode: disabled
>> }
>>
>> I am a little confused about using. Should I add the Multicast address for
>> the 2nd Network as ring 1 or can I have 2 Interfaces on ring 0 on different
>> networks ?
>>
>> Giving me:
>>
>> # Please read the corosync.conf.5 manual page
>> compatibility: whitetank
>>
>> totem {
>> version: 2
>> secauth: on
>> threads: 0
>> interface {
>> ringnumber: 0
>> bindnetaddr: 10.251.96.160
>> #broadcast: yes
>> mcastaddr: 239.254.6.8
>>                 mcastport: 5405
>> ttl: 1
>> }
>> interface {
>> ringnumber: 0
>> bindnetaddr: 10.122.147.192
>> #broadcast: yes
>> mcastaddr: 239.254.6.9
>>                 mcastport: 5405
>> ttl: 1
>> }
>> }
>>
>> logging {
>> fileline: off
>> to_stderr: no
>> to_logfile: yes
>> to_syslog: yes
>> logfile: /var/log/cluster/corosync.log
>> debug: off
>> timestamp: on
>> logger_subsys {
>> subsys: AMF
>> debug: off
>> }
>> }
>>
>> amf {
>> mode: disabled
>> }
>>
>> Just need to make sure that if I lose either of the interfaces they VIP's
>> fail over.
>>
>> --
>> Linux-cluster mailing list
>> Linux-cluster redhat com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
>
>
>
>
> --
> esta es mi vida e me la vivo hasta que dios quiera
> -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
>
> --
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster



-- 
Dan Frincu
CCNA, RHCE


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]