Hi Fabio, Thank you for comment. > I'll let Honza look at it, I don't have enough physical hardware to > reproduce. All right. Many Thanks! Hideo Yamauchi. --- On Tue, 2013/6/11, Fabio M. Di Nitto <fdinitto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Yamauchi-san, > > I'll let Honza look at it, I don't have enough physical hardware to > reproduce. > > Fabio > > On 06/11/2013 01:15 AM, renayama19661014@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Hi Fabio, > > > > Thank you for comments. > > > > We confirmed this problem in the physical environment. > > The communication of corosync lets eth1,eth2 go through. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > [root@bl460g6a ~]# ip addr show > > (snip) > > 3: eth1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc mq state UP qlen 1000 > > link/ether f4:ce:46:b3:fe:3c brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff > > inet 192.168.101.9/24 brd 192.168.101.255 scope global eth1 > > inet6 fe80::f6ce:46ff:feb3:fe3c/64 scope link > > valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever > > 4: eth2: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc mq state UP qlen 1000 > > link/ether 18:a9:05:78:6c:f0 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff > > inet 192.168.102.9/24 brd 192.168.102.255 scope global eth2 > > inet6 fe80::1aa9:5ff:fe78:6cf0/64 scope link > > valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever > > (snip) > > 8: virbr0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN > > link/ether 52:54:00:7f:f3:0a brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff > > inet 192.168.122.1/24 brd 192.168.122.255 scope global virbr0 > > 9: virbr0-nic: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 qdisc noop state DOWN qlen 500 > > link/ether 52:54:00:7f:f3:0a brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff > > ----------------------------------------------- > > > > I think that it is not a virtual environmental problem. > > > > I attach the log that I confirmed just to make sure in three Blade.(RHEL6.4) > > * I performed the interception of the communication with a network switch. > > > > The phenomenon is similar, and, as for one node, a loop does an OPERATIONAL state, and two other nodes do not change in an OPERATIONAL state. > > > > After all is the problem same as the bug that you taught? > >> Check this thread as reference: > >> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/openais/2013-April/016792.html > > > > > > Best Regards, > > Hideo Yamauchi. > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 2013/5/31, Fabio M. Di Nitto <fdinitto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On 5/31/2013 7:12 AM, renayama19661014@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>> Hi All, > >>> > >>> We discovered the problem of the network of the corosync communication. > >>> > >>> We composed a cluster of three nodes on KVM in corosync. > >>> > >>> Step 1) Start corosync service in all nodes. > >>> > >>> Step 2) Confirm that a cluster is comprised of all nodes definitely and became the OPERATIONAL state. > >>> > >>> Step 3) Cut off the network of node1(rh64-coro1) and node2(rh64-coro2) from a host of KVM. > >>> > >>> [root@kvm-host ~]# brctl delif virbr3 vnet5;brctl delif virbr2 vnet1 > >>> > >>> Step 4) Because a problem occurred, we stop all nodes. > >>> > >>> > >>> The problem occurs at the time of step 3. > >>> > >>> One node(rh64-coro1) continues moving a state after becoming the OPERATIONAL state. > >>> > >>> Two nodes(rh64-coro2 and rh64-coro3) continue changing in a state. > >>> It seems to never change in an OPERATIONAL state while the first node operates. > >>> > >>> This means that two nodes(rh64-coro2 and rh64-coro3) cannot complete cluster constitution. > >>> When this network trouble happens, by the setting that corosync combined with Pacemaker, corosync cannot notify Pacemaker of the constitution change of the cluster. > >>> > >>> > >>> Question 1) Are there any parameters to solve this problem in corosync.conf? > >>> * We bundle up an interface(Bonding) and think that it can be settled by appointing "rrp_mode:none", but do not want to appoint "rrp_mode:none". > >>> > >>> Question 2) Is this a bug? Or is it specifications of the communication of corosync? > >> > >> We already checked this specific test, and it appears to be a bug in > >> the kernel bridge code when handling multicast traffic (groups are not > >> joined correctly and traffic is not forwarded). > >> > >> Check this thread as reference: > >> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/openais/2013-April/016792.html > >> > >> Thanks > >> Fabio > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> discuss mailing list > >> discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx > >> http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >> > > _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
