Active/passive (mode=1), I am 99% sure. I tested all the different bonding modes and found only mode 1 to be reliable. That said, support from Red Hat now covers mode 0 and 2. For those with access: https://access.redhat.com/articles/40051 The relevant snippet is: ==== For RHEL versions 4, 5, and 6.0-6.3, the only supported bonding mode is mode=1, which is also known as the active/passive mode. In RHEL 6.4+ bonding modes 0, 1, and 2 are supported. ==== Note that I tested pre-6.3, I have not tested under modes 0 or 2 since support was added. digimer On 08/08/15 07:02 PM, Steven Dake wrote: > Be careful with bonding - there are several different operational modes > and only one works. We tested bonding extensively at RHT with corosync > and came to the conclusion that only one bonding mode was reliable with > corosync. I don't recall what the bonding mode # was specifically, > perhaps Honza could read the documentation and report. > > Regards > -steve > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 2:52 AM, <renayama19661014@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:renayama19661014@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > Hi Honza, > > Thank you for comments. > > >> 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. > > > Okay! > > We discuss future setting from now on. > As you say, we may be going to use bonding, too. > > Many Thanks! > Hideo Yamauchi. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Jan Friesse <jfriesse@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jfriesse@xxxxxxxxxx>> > > To: renayama19661014@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:renayama19661014@xxxxxxxxx>; > COROSYNC <discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> > > Cc: > > Date: 2015/8/3, Mon 16:18 > > Subject: Re: [Question] About "Add note about rrp > active beeing unsupported". of corosync2.3.5 > > > > Hideo, > > > > renayama19661014@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 > <mailto:renayama19661014@xxxxxxxxx>" > > <renayama19661014@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:renayama19661014@xxxxxxxxx>> > >>> To: COROSYNC <discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 > <mailto:jfriesse@xxxxxxxxxx>> > >>>> To: renayama19661014@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:renayama19661014@xxxxxxxxx>; COROSYNC > > <discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 <mailto:discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> discuss mailing list > >>> discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> discuss mailing list > >> discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education? _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
