This followup came to me, but didn't seem to go to the lists, so
forwarding for reference.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Openais] HA Cluster Connected over VPN
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:47:18 +1030
From: Darren Thompson <darrent@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tim Serong <tserong@xxxxxxxx>
Tim
Rather than configuring the two interfaces with IP addresses, you could
bond them. This will give you (more reliable) ring redundancy and
resolve the issue you are having with multiple interfaces into the same
sub-net.
The use of Bonding was (still is?) the preferred way of providing
protection from a single NIC failing in a Corosync Cluster.
refer:
Some Documentation (Sorry SUSE based)
<http://www.suse.com/documentation/sle_ha/pdfdoc/book_sleha/book_sleha.pdf>
Where this has been discussed previously
<http://www.mail-archive.com/pacemaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg04925.html>
Regards
Darren
On 25 January 2012 13:32, Tim Serong <tserong@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:tserong@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On 01/25/2012 12:32 PM, M Siddiqui wrote:
Hi there,
I have a situation where two cluster nodes are connected over
the VPN;
each node
is configured with two interfaces to provide ring redundancy for
corosync:
NODE1:
eth1: 192.168.1.111/24 <http://192.168.1.111/24>
<http://192.168.1.111/24>
eth2: 192.168.1.112/24 <http://192.168.1.112/24>
<http://192.168.1.112/24>
NODE2:
eth1: 192.168.1.113/24 <http://192.168.1.113/24>
<http://192.168.1.113/24>
eth2: 192.168.1.114/24 <http://192.168.1.114/24>
<http://192.168.1.114/24>
corosync version 1.4.2
transport udpu (multicast has the same issue)
Since two nodes are geographically distributed and connected
over the VPN,
configuring each interface in a different subnet is not an
option here.
Now corosync got confused due to same subnet; how we can handle
this
situation?
What is the experts recommendation? Thanks in advance for the
answer.
I'm pretty sure if you're doing multiple rings, they need to be on
separate subnets. Question: if you're going over a single openVPN
instance, you only really have one communication path between the
nodes, right? In which case, redundant rings won't actually help.
Also, you probably want the discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx> list.
openais@lists.linux-__foundation.org
<mailto:openais@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> is deprecated, for lack
of a better term.
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Serong
Senior Clustering Engineer
SUSE
tserong@xxxxxxxx <mailto:tserong@xxxxxxxx>
_________________________________________________
Openais mailing list
Openais@lists.linux-__foundation.org
<mailto:Openais@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.__org/mailman/listinfo/openais
<https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais>
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
