[ClusterLabs] QDevice vs 3rd host for majority node quorum

[Jan Friesse]

On 15/07/2021 10:09, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 19:55:30 +0000 (UTC)
> Strahil Nikolov <hunter86_bg at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> In some cases the third location has a single IP and it makes sense to use it
>> as QDevice. If it has multiple network connections to that location - use a
>> full blown node .
> 
> By the way, what's the point of multiple rings in corosync when we can setup
> bonding or teaming on OS layer?

Main point of RRP was:
- Bonding/Teaming is not possible everywhere (not supported by switches, 
...)
- To have a checkmark (other products have redundant ring available)

Knet is way improved RRP + some features which wasn't implemented before 
(like pmtu).

> 
> I remember some times ago bonding was recommended over corosync rings, because
> the totem protocol on multiple rings wasn't as flexible than bonding/teaming

RRP was not recommended mostly because it was fundamentally broken.

> and multiple rings was only useful to corosync/pacemaker where bonding was
> useful for all other services on the server.
> 
> ...But that was before the knet era. Did it changed?

There is a nozzle which creates tun device so it is possible to use 
"corosync/knet" network by other services.

Regards,
   Honza

> 
> Regards,
> _______________________________________________
> Manage your subscription:
> https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> 
> ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
>