LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Linux - Software (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-software-2/)
-   -   Corosync configuration: (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-software-2/corosync-configuration-4175590325/)

ogniemi 09-28-2016 10:04 AM

Corosync configuration:
 
hello,
I have setup corosync with following ocnfiguration:

Code:

# cat /etc/corosync/corosync.conf
totem {
    version: 2
    secauth: off
    cluster_name: pacemaker1
    transport: udpu
    rrp_mode: passive
}

nodelist {
    node {
        ring0_addr: lvs1
        ring1_addr: lvs1b
        nodeid: 101
    }
    node {
        ring0_addr: lvs2
        ring1_addr: lvs2b
        nodeid: 102
    }
}

quorum {
  provider: corosync_votequorum
  two_node: 1
  wait_for_all: 1
  last_man_standing: 1
  auto_tie_breaker: 0
}

logging {
    to_logfile: yes
    logfile: /var/log/cluster/corosync.log
    to_syslog: yes
}

it works fine - both rings are fine:

Code:

# corosync-cfgtool -s
Printing ring status.
Local node ID 102
RING ID 0
        id      = 192.168.198.21
        status  = ring 0 active with no faults
RING ID 1
        id      = 192.168.199.21
        status  = ring 1 active with no faults

Question1: why corosync.conf manual says that interfaces in totem is required? I don't have it and cluster works fine.

Code:

      Within the totem directive, an interface directive is required.  There is also one configuration option which is required:

      Within the interface sub-directive of totem there are four parameters which are required.  There is one parameter which is optional.

I don't want to use any multicast - with my configuration when I run "tcpdump -n "broadcast or multicast or ip" -i eth2" it only catch only:

Code:

13:13:55.936454 IP 192.168.199.20.5405 > 192.168.199.21.5405: UDP, length 74
13:13:55.936677 IP 192.168.199.21.5405 > 192.168.199.20.5405: UDP, length 74
13:13:55.937025 IP 192.168.199.20.5405 > 192.168.199.21.5405: UDP, length 74
13:13:55.937253 IP 192.168.199.21.5405 > 192.168.199.20.5405: UDP, length 74
13:13:55.937593 IP 192.168.199.20.5405 > 192.168.199.21.5405: UDP, length 74

so looks fine.

I just want to be sure that there is no risk using configuration I have now.

smallpond 09-28-2016 01:55 PM

How did your failover testing go?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:59 PM.