I dont think rrp is well tested by upstream. You might want to ask on the corosync ML to be sure.
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Michael Schwartzkopff <mi...@clusterbau.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I have two network cards and configured corosync-1.2.7 with > rrp_mode: active > > at first corosync-cfg -s tells me > Printing ring status. > Local node ID 1210452490 > RING ID 0 > id = 10.10.38.72 > status = ring 0 active with no faults > RING ID 1 > id = 10.10.40.115 > status = ring 1 active with no faults > > after a very short time I see the following: > > RING ID 1 > id = 10.10.40.115 > status = Incrementing problem counter for seqid 1352 iface > 10.10.40.115 to [3 of 10] > > and finally: > RING ID 1 > id = 10.10.40.115 > status = Marking seqid 1390 ringid 1 interface 10.10.40.115 FAULTY - > adminisrtative intervention required. > > Anybody being successful at all using rrp_mode with corosync? > > Greetings. > > -- > Dr. Michael Schwartzkopff > Guardinistr. 63 > 81375 München > > Tel: (0163) 172 50 98 > > _______________________________________________ > Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@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 > > _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@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
