On 2025-05-08 13:54, Robin Christ wrote:
On 07.05.25 17:22, Kevin Schneider wrote:
IMO this isn't strict enough and we should empathize on the importance
of the problem. I would go for
To ensure reliable Corosync redundancy, it's essential to use at least
two separate physical and logical networks. Single bonded interfaces
do not provide Corosync redundancy. When a bonded interface fails
without redundancy, it can lead to asymmetric communication, causing
all nodes to lose quorum—even if more than half of them can still
communicate with each other.
Although a bond on the interface together with MLAG'd switches CAN
provide further resiliency in case of switch or single NIC PHY failure.
It does not protect against total failure of the NIC of course.
I think adding a "typical topologies" or "example topologies" to the
docs might be a good idea?
Below my personal, opinionated recommendation after deploying quite a
good amount of Proxmox clusters. Of course I don't expect everyone to
agree with this... But hopefully it can serve as a starting point?
Thanks for the feedback! I do agree, having some practical example
configurations is a good idea to have. A bit too much for this series
IMHO though. But something we can expand on in the future, ideally with
a few graphics for each variant.
I'll keep that in mind for the future!
[snip]
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
