On 07/02/2012 08:19 AM, Andrew Martin wrote: > Hi Steve, > > Thanks for the clarification. Am I correct in understanding that in a > complete network, corosync will automatically re-add nodes that drop out > and reappear for any reason (e.g. maintenance, network connectivity > loss, STONITH, etc)? > Apologies for delay - was on PTO. That is correct. Regards -steve > Thanks, > > Andrew > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *"Steven Dake" <sdake@xxxxxxxxxx> > *To: *"The Pacemaker cluster resource manager" > <pacemaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > *Cc: *discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx > *Sent: *Friday, June 29, 2012 9:40:43 AM > *Subject: *Re: [Pacemaker] Different Corosync Rings for Different Nodes > in Same Cluster? > > On 06/29/2012 01:42 AM, Dan Frincu wrote: >> 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? >>> > > In general I think you cannot do what you describe. Let me repeat it so > its clear: > > A B C - NET #1 > A B - Net #2 > > Where A, B are your cluster nodes, and C is your quorum node. > > You want Net #1 and Net #2 to serve as redundant rings. Since C is > missing, Net #2 will automatically be detected as faulty. > > The part about corosync automatically repairing nodes is correct, that > would work (If you had a complete network). > > Regards > -steve > >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
