On 8/9/2015 3:31 AM, Digimer wrote: > 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 > We also test and support mode4 LACP now. That article needs to be updated and synced with: https://access.redhat.com/solutions/27604 (linked from 40051). Fabio > 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
