If you dont care about the second nics status, why do you even use it redundant?
Stefan > Am 19.03.2014 um 19:13 schrieb "Aaron Wilson" <awil...@nautilusgrp.com>: > > Hello, > > This is my first post and I am new to HA clusters. Let me start by thanking > everyone for their contributions to such a great project. > > I am really hoping to get pointed in the right direction so I can stop with > the guessing. > > On Ubuntu 12.04 I am using corosync, cman and pacemaker I have two servers > each with 2 nics. Both servers are identical, having each of their nics on > the same respective subnets. > > When the master server fails completely, the Virtual IPs are taken over by > the failover server (works as expected). What I want is to failover when > connectivity is lost on either of the nics, not just when the all > communication to the master server fails. > > Not sure if this configuration is done on the Corosync as in Redundant Ring, > or the pacemaker side. I have tried several configurations with no > difference. I even tried using the RA ethmonitor, but it fails to start the > monitor. > > Any advice would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks You, > > > Aaron > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
