Hi, On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Andrew Martin <amartin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Dan, > > Thanks for the help. If I configure the network as I described - ring 0 as > the network all 3 nodes are on, ring 1 as the network only 2 of the nodes > are on, and using "passive" - and the ring 0 network goes down, corosync > will start using ring 1. Does this mean that the quorum node will appear to > be offline to the cluster? Will the cluster attempt to STONITH it? Once the > ring 0 network is available again, will corosync transition back to using it > as the communication ring, or will it continue to use ring 1 until it fails? > > The ideal behavior would be when ring 0 fails it then communicates over ring > 1, but keeps periodically checking to see if ring 0 is working again. Once > it is, it returns to using ring 0. Is this possible? Added corosync ML in CC as I think this is better asked here as well. Regards, Dan > > Thanks, > > Andrew > > ________________________________ > From: "Dan Frincu" <df.cluster@xxxxxxxxx> > To: "The Pacemaker cluster resource manager" <pacemaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 3:42:42 AM > Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] Different Corosync Rings for Different Nodes > in Same Cluster? > > > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Andrew Martin <amartin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I am setting up a 3 node cluster with Corosync + Pacemaker on Ubuntu 12.04 >> server. Two of the nodes are "real" nodes, while the 3rd is in standby >> mode >> as a quorum node. The two "real" nodes each have two NICs, one that is >> connected to a shared LAN and the other that is directly connected between >> the two nodes (for DRBD replication). The quorum node is only connected to >> the shared LAN. I would like to have multiple Corosync rings for >> redundancy, >> however I do not know if this would cause problems for the quorum node. Is >> it possible for me to configure the shared LAN as ring 0 (which all 3 >> nodes >> are connected to) and set the rrp_mode to passive so that it will use ring >> 0 >> unless there is a failure, but to also configure the direct link between >> the >> two "real" nodes as ring 1? > > Short answer, yes. > > Longer answer. I have a setup with two nodes with two interfaces, one > is connected via a switch to the other node and one is a back-to-back > link for DRBD replication. In Corosync I have two rings, one that goes > via the switch and one via the back-to-back link (rrp_mode: active). > With rrp_mode: passive it should work the way you mentioned. > > HTH, > Dan > >> >> Thanks, >> >> Andrew >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker >> >> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org >> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf >> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org >> > > > > -- > Dan Frincu > CCNA, RHCE > > _______________________________________________ > Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker > > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org > Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf > Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker > > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org > Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf > Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org > -- Dan Frincu CCNA, RHCE _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
