[Pacemaker] Trouble getting two node cluster to failover when network lost

Jan Friesse jfriesse at redhat.com
Thu Mar 20 03:29:47 EDT 2014

Aaron Wilson napsal(a):
> Stefan, thanks for the reply.
> Having two nics is not for redundancy in my case. Resources on the primary
> server are being accessed from both subnets at the same time. The secondary
> server is  to be a failover if the server goes down or if any of the
> Ethernet ports become disconnected for any reason.  I read through the
> documentation and I am still not sure of the relationship between the
> Corosync hostnames / interfaces and Pacemaker resources.  Could corosync be
> configured to detect failure and start failover of a node using rrp or does
> the resource need to be monitored by Pacemaker in order to get moved form
> primary to secondary server?

Corosync itself doesn't take any visible action when one of rings failed
(it just keeps sending messages via another ring). RRP is there only for
redundancy and it's intended to be invisible for corosync clients
(Pacemaker included). Everything resource management related is
Pacemaker job.

> There is actually a third nic on the servers which could be used only for
> cluster communication if that works better.
> Thanks again for your input. I will do some more reading as well.
> - Aaron
> _______________________________________________
> Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker at 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

More information about the Pacemaker mailing list