[Pacemaker] HA Cluster Connected over VPN

Arnold Krille arnold at arnoldarts.de
Tue Jan 24 15:51:49 EST 2012

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:
>   eth2:
> NODE2:
>   eth1:
>   eth2:
> 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-

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,

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/attachments/20120124/d55e1610/attachment-0003.sig>

More information about the Pacemaker mailing list