[Pacemaker] Redundant rings vs one bond based ring

[Gianluca Cecchi]

Hello,
based on pacemaker 1.0.8 + corosync 1.2.2, having two network interfaces to
dedicate to cluster communication, what is better/safer at this moment:

a) only one corosync ring on top of a bond interface
b) two different rings, each one associated with one interface
?

Question based also on corosync roadmap document, containing this goal:
Improved redundant ring support:
The redundant ring support in corosync needs more testing, especially around
boundary areas such as 0x7FFFFFFF seqids.
Redundant ring should have an automatic way to recover from failures by
periodically checking the link and instituting a recovery of the ring.

BTW: if a link fail, what is the current "manual" command to notify the CCE
when it becomes available again?

Thanks,
Gianluca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/attachments/20100518/5bda224d/attachment-0001.html>