Steven Dake wrote: > On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 12:38 -0600, Wolfgang Pauli wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am trying to setup gfs on a cluster that spans over two subnets. dream is a >> node with to interefaces, one on each subnet. I thought the below setup >> should work (taken from http://gfs.wikidev.net/Installation ). But it does >> not. Can anybody tell me what is wrong with that? >> >> cheers, >> >> wolfgang >> >> <?xml version="1.0" ?> >> <cluster config_version="2" name="alpha_cluster"> >> <fence_daemon post_fail_delay="0" post_join_delay="3"/> >> <clusternodes> >> <clusternode name="dream" votes="1"> >> <altname name"dream-e1"> >> <multicast addr="224.0.0.1" interface="eth0"/> >> <multicast addr="224.0.0.9" interface="eth1"/> >> <fence> >> <method name="1"> >> <device name="human" nodename="dream"/> >> </method> >> </fence> >> </clusternode> >> <clusternode name="neo" votes="1"> >> <multicast addr="224.0.0.1" interface="eth0"/> >> <fence> >> <method name="1"> >> <device name="human" nodename="neo"/> >> </method> >> </fence> >> </clusternode> >> <clusternode name="node1" votes="1"> >> <multicast addr="224.0.0.9" interface="eth0"/> >> <fence> >> <method name="1"> >> <device name="human" nodename="node1"/> >> </method> >> </fence> >> </clusternode> >> </clusternodes> >> <cman expected_votes="1" two_node="1"> >> <multicast addr="224.0.0.1"/> >> <multicast addr="224.0.0.9"/> >> </cman> >> <fencedevices> >> <fencedevice agent="fence_manual" name="human"/> >> </fencedevices> >> <rm> >> <failoverdomains/> >> <resources/> >> </rm> >> </cluster> >> > > Wolfgang > Do not use the multicast address 224.0.0.1. It is reserved for some > various ipv4 operations. > > Try using 225.0.0.9. If you have a switch between the two subnets, I > would expect RHCS to work. If you have a router, I'd expect it not to > work as the TTL must be set for multicast packets to hop across routers. > For IPV6 the hop count must be set. It appears you are using ipv4. > > If you have a switch and it doesn't work, try turning off IGMP filtering > in the switch +if it is a smart switch. If it is a dumb switch it > should just work with some additional latencies. Good advice. I've fixed the Wiki page, so it reflects reality a little more. I don't know where that came from but it was confusing. -- patrick -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
