[Pacemaker] Physical setup - crossover cable recommended ?

[Chris Clifton]

Does the bug with centos 6 still exist as far as recovery/failover goes ?


Thanks
Chris Clifton

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Florian Haas <florian at hastexo.com> wrote:

> On 2011-11-01 22:30, Hugo Deprez wrote:
> > Dear community,
> >
> > I would like to improve my configuration of my clusters.
> >
> > I am thinking of using a crossover cable between my two servers for :
> >
> > Corosync trafic,
> > DRBD trafic,
> >
> > Is that the best practice ?
> > By using a crossover cable I'll avoid any issue on the cluster when
> > spanning tree change on my network.
> > Until now all the trafic is using the same Lan. And I do have other
> > stuff on this network.
>
> For DRBD, that's a fine and recommended appproach.
>
> For Corosync, there's an underlying misconception here. You essentially
> always want to run cluster communications over more than one link, so
> you would run your Corosync traffic over _both_ your back-to-back cable
> and your switched network. Corosync calls this redundant rings.
>
> Cheers,
> Florian
>
> --
> Need help with Pacemaker?
> http://www.hastexo.com/now
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
>
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs:
> http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/attachments/20111101/856ec1ed/attachment-0003.html>