Re: [Question] About "Add note about rrp active beeing unsupported". of corosync2.3.5

[Jan Friesse <jfriesse@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hideo,

renayama19661014@xxxxxxxxx napsal(a):
> Hi Honza,
>
>
> > > > In addition, is there a point to be careful about when we continue
> > using
> > > "ative"?
> > >
> > > Only (but big) problem with active is that active doesn't make
> > progress
> > > if one of link fails until link is marked as failed. Passive always
> > > makes progress (= works) even link is failed and failure is not yet
> > > detected.
>
>
> I want you to teach Bugzilla of the contents of the problem that happened in "active" if you know it.
> ...Or information about the constitution of a cluster and the resource that the problem happens.

Actually, no document really exists. Active mode inability to deliver 
messages until failed ring is marked as failed is consequence of how 
active mode works.

> We want to discuss the future policy based on the information.

I would suggest bonding. It's wider tested technology and as far as I 
can tell it has less corner edges than RRP.

Regards,
  Honza

> Best Regard,
> Hideo Yamauchi.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "renayama19661014@xxxxxxxxx" <renayama19661014@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: COROSYNC <discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc:
> > Date: 2015/7/28, Tue 09:55
> > Subject: Re:  [Question] About "Add note about rrp active beeing unsupported". of corosync2.3.5
> >
> > Hi Honza,
> >
> > Thank you for comments.
> >
> >
> > > >   In addition, is there a point to be careful about when we continue
> > using
> > >   "ative"?
> > >
> > >   Only (but big) problem with active is that active doesn't make
> > progress
> > >   if one of link fails until link is marked as failed. Passive always
> > >   makes progress (= works) even link is failed and failure is not yet
> > >   detected.
> >
> >
> >
> > Does this mean that "actvie" setting delays the delivery to the node
> > of the message of the normal interface until the interface that failed becomes
> > "faulty"?
> >
> > Does it mean that the reconstitution of the cluster may happen until an
> > inoperative interface becomes "faulty" by this delay?
> >
> > If it is this phenomenon, I can understand a problem.
> >
> > >   But as long as you are happy with rrp active, use active.
> >
> >
> > Because the number of the nodes that we treated was not so big, a big problem of
> > "active" has not occurred.
> >
> > I argue with a member and think about the use of future "rrp_mode".
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Hideo Yamauchi.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > >   From: Jan Friesse <jfriesse@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >   To: renayama19661014@xxxxxxxxx; COROSYNC <discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >   Cc:
> > >   Date: 2015/7/27, Mon 18:46
> > >   Subject: Re:  [Question] About "Add note about rrp active
> > beeing unsupported". of corosync2.3.5
> > >   renayama19661014@xxxxxxxxx napsal(a):
> > > >    Hi All,
> > > >
> > > >    I thank for release of corosync2.3.5.
> > > >
> > > >    We used the "rrp_mode:active" setting so far.
> > > >
> > > >    The "rrp_mode: active" did not seem to be recommended when I
> > saw
> > >   release note of corosync2.3.5.
> > > >    What is the cause that was not recommended from this time?
> > >
> > >   It was actually never recommended, only change it's now noted in the
> > man
> > >   page.
> > >
> > >
> > > >    In addition, is there a point to be careful about when we continue
> > using
> > >   "ative"?
> > >
> > >   Only (but big) problem with active is that active doesn't make progress
> >
> > >   if one of link fails until link is marked as failed. Passive always
> > >   makes progress (= works) even link is failed and failure is not yet
> > >   detected.
> > >
> > >   But as long as you are happy with rrp active, use active.
> > >
> > >   Regards,
> > >      Honza
> > >
> > > >      * We want to know a problem and the influence that were not
> > recommended
> > >   in detail.
> > > >    Best Regards,
> > > >    Hideo Yamauchi.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >    _______________________________________________
> > > >    discuss mailing list
> > > >    discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >    http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss