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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Clusters]     [Corosync Project]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]    [Yosemite Photos]    [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [X.Org]

  Powered by Linux