>>> Steven Dake <steven.dake@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb am 09.08.2015 um 01:02 in Nachricht <CAPwfPsjd_SGrC923OUU=Q4LeUki_4nKExUCrZAT8Y7CiX8Ccng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > 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. Hi! I hope there won't be another message saying only one type of NIC was found to be working with Corosync ;-) Before making statements like the one above, precisely list the requirements that corosync has, preferably referencing the bugs that lead to those requirements. My basic idea is: If some UDP protocol like NFS works with a specific network connection, why shouldn't corosync work with a connection of equal quality? Regards, Ulrich > > Regards > -steve > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 2:52 AM, <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> >> > To: renayama19661014@xxxxxxxxx; COROSYNC <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 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 >> _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
