[ClusterLabs] [corosync] Master branch
ccaulfie at redhat.com
Tue Oct 11 08:22:30 EDT 2016
On 11/10/16 12:07, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> On 11.10.2016 12:42, Christine Caulfield wrote:
>> I've just committed a bit patch to the master branch of corosync - it is
>> now all very experimental, and existing pull requests against master
>> might need to be checked. This starts the work on what will hopefully
>> become corosync 3.0
>> The commit is to make Kronosnet the new, default, transport for
>> corosync. It might take a while to get this fully stabilised but I've
>> been running it myself for a while now and it seems pretty reliable.
>> Here are the commit notes:
>> totem: Add Kronosnet transport.
>> This is a big update that removes RRP & MRP from the codebase
>> and makes knet the default transport for corosync. UDP & UDPU
>> are still (currently) supported but are deprecated. Also crypto
>> and mutiple interfaces are only supported over knet.
>> To compile this codebase you will need to install libknet from
>> The corosync.conf(5) man page has been updated with info on the new
>> options. Older config files should still work but many options
>> have changed because of the knet implementation so configs should
>> be checked carefully. In particular any cluster using using RRP
>> over UDP or UDPU will not start as RRP is no longer present. If you
>> need multiple interface support then you should be using the knet
>> Knet brings many benefits to the corosync codebase, it provides support
>> for more interfaces than RRP (up to 8), will be more reliable in the
>> of network outages and allows dynamic reconfiguration of interfaces.
>> It also fixes the ifup/ifdown and 127.0.0.1 binding problems that have
>> plagued corosync/openais from day 1
>> Signed-off-by: Christine Caulfield <ccaulfie at redhat.com>
> Is it wise to only have support for a project that seems to be stuck in
> an almost abandoned state? There seems to exist no meaningful
> documentation available, the readme says that the project is in its
> early stages of development (apparently for many years now) and the repo
> sees very little activity from mostly one person. The user mailing list
> has received one mail in 2010 and the development mailing list isn't
> much more active either.
I'm in touch with the developer and the project is very far from being
abandoned - even if the website is!
We'll be taking on maintenance of knet as part of the cluster team here
at Red Hat. believe me, this is not a dead project.
More information about the Users