I don't know that there would be such a possibility in the cluster.conf. But I think you do not need this. Look at the function ipv4_same_subnet in the script /usr/share/cluster/ip.sh, this and the following ones should do this for you. The script figures out which physical interface(s) (even if bonded) owns this ip and netmask and should add the ip to the rigt interface with the "ip" command. If you really want to specify it on an other way, you can modify the ip.sh script. But if you define an ip directly to an interface you have to define all interfaces with persistent and equal configuration on all your nodes. Hope that this can help you. Regards Dirk Am Mittwoch, den 12.03.2008, 12:48 +0000 schrieb gordan@xxxxxxxxxx: > On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, gordan@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > How can I specify in cluster.conf which physical interface the failover > > domain IPs should be assigned to on each node? I cannot seem to find any > > documentation on the subject. If anyone can point me in the right direction, > > that would be most appreciated. > > Perhaps it wasn't immediately obvios what I meant here, so I'll expand > with an example: > > In cluster.conf: > [...] > <rm> > <failoverdomains> > <failoverdomain name = "private-ip" ordered = "1" restricted = "1"> > <failoverdomainnode name = "host1" priority = "1"/> > <failoverdomainnode name = "host2" priority = "2"/> > </failoverdomain> > <resources> > <ip address = "192.168.255.250" monitor_link="1"/> > </resources> > <service autostart = "1" domain = "private-ip" name = "myservice"> > <ip ref = "192.168.255.250"/> > </service> > </rm> > [...] > > What I cannot seem to find documented is how to control which physical > interface the ip resource 192.168.255.250 is going to be assigned to on > fail-over. How can this be defined, and/or inferred, if there are multiple > interfaces in the system? Is there an option that allows something like > this: > > <ip address = "192.168.255.250" monitor_link="1" interface="eth3" /> > > or > > <ip ref = "192.168.255.250" interface="eth3" /> > > The option instead of "interface" is what I am after if there is such a > thing. Is there such a thing? If not, how can resource-to-interface > binding be defined? > > TIA. > > Gordan > > -- > Linux-cluster mailing list > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
-- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
