Hi, On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Ben Shepherd <bshepherd@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >> >>OK so how does that affect the fail over. Each f the networks is important > > > -- > Linux-cluster mailing list > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster -- Dan Frincu CCNA, RHCE -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
