[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 Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Ben Shepherd <bshepherd voxeo com> wrote:
> Now I am even more confused. How do I configure this thing so that it
> fails over if either of the networks I lost.
>

Don't really see the reasoning behind this, normally you'd want the
service to be available if any of the paths is still reachable.

To prevent what I would call undefined behavior, you would be better
off with just one ring if you don't want redundancy.

Otherwise look into setting up ping location restrictions (but this is
done one layer up, in the resource manager, not in the communications
layer). See http://www.clusterlabs.org/wiki/Pingd_with_resources_on_different_networks

Regards,
Dan

> Can I setup 2 multicast address on separate networks in a non-redundant
> way.

Now given the statement made here, I have to ask, if they're not
redundant, why use two multicast groups?

>
>
>
> On 06/02/2012 12:25, "Dan Frincu" <df cluster gmail com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>OK so how does that affect the fail over. Each f the networks is important
>
>
> --
> 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]