Hi Honza, Thank you for comments. > Wait wait wait. This is totally different situation. My expectation was > ONE cable per node for ONE switch. But you are using TWO switches and > TWO cables per node. Are you using RRP? Or bonding? We use rrp. > > A control message of corosync goes each other, and, in the case of this trouble, does a problem not happen? > > Does it not become the factor that cannot constitute a cluster? > > It really depends on technology you are using. Bonding shouldn't have > problem with such situation, because each of cables is equal and you can > lost any of them. RRP is totally different story and it will behave > incorrectly (in a way you've described), because corosync itself will: > - mark one of ring as failed > - keep going between operational/gather state > > In other words, there will be membership, but very unstable. In the case of the constitution of the sw like us, it is necessary to use bonding. * Not rrp, it is necessary to use bonding. We discuss adoption of bonding. Is there the plan solving this problem in the future in corosync? Because it is specifications of corosync, there is not the plan to solve this problem in the future? Many Thanks. Hideo Yamauchi. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
