[Linux-HA] Redundant Rings "Still Not There?"

Robinson, Eric eric.robinson at psmnv.com
Sun Oct 24 09:10:58 MDT 2010


>> That way, if something happens to switched network #1, 
>> Corosync can still track node status through switched 
>> net #2.
>> 
>> Once this configuration is built, I can use Pacemaker 
>> with resource constraints to ensure that resource R1 
>> can only run on SERVER_A or SERVER_C (usually A) and 
>> resource R2 can only run on SERVER_B and SERVER_C (usually 
>> C) and SERVER_C acts as a failover for both resources.

> That's correct. And since it's a 3 node cluster you 
> can make this using simple constraints like this:

> location R1-prefers-A R1 100: SERVER_A
> location R1-not-B -inf: SERVER_B
> location R2-prefers-B R2 100: SERVER_B
> location R2-not-A -inf: SERVER_A

Excellent, it feels good to have finally wrapped my head around this. 

But now could someone please elaborate on Dejan Muhamedagic's original
comment that started the thread? What does "redundant rings are still
not there" mean? Is a three-node cluster an unreliable setup because
Corosync and/or Pacemaker are not really ready for that?

--
Eric Robinson


Disclaimer - October 24, 2010 
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for General Linux-HA mailing list. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and might not represent those of Physicians' Managed Care or Physician Select Management. Warning: Although Physicians' Managed Care or Physician Select Management has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments. 
This disclaimer was added by Policy Patrol: http://www.policypatrol.com/



More information about the Linux-HA mailing list