On Tuesday 24 January 2012 09:47:18 M Siddiqui wrote: > I have a situation where two cluster nodes are connected over the VPN; each > node > is configured with two interfaces to provide ring redundancy for corosync: > NODE1: > eth1: 192.168.1.111/24 > eth2: 192.168.1.112/24 > NODE2: > eth1: 192.168.1.113/24 > eth2: 192.168.1.114/24 > Since two nodes are geographically distributed and connected over the VPN, > configuring each interface in a different subnet is not an option here. > Now corosync got confused due to same subnet; how we can handle this > situation?
Lets answer your questions with some questions: - Why two interfaces in the same subnet? If these interfaces are connected to the same switch, bonding gives you more advantages. And using two communication rings for corosync will give you nothing if that network fails. - Is that one vpn-connection between these machines? If yes, why do you want to use two communication-rings when both cross the same single-point-of- failure-vpn? Using the same subnet for two communication-rings will disturb corosync as it uses multicasts for communication. And that is best done with one multicast- channel per subnet. Have fun, Arnold
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ 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://bugs.clusterlabs.org
