On 08/04/19 19:08 +0200, Jan Friesse wrote: > Anyway. RRP is broken, Since this is repeatedly rehashed on this list without summarizing *what* is that much broken[1] while serving (rather well, I think) last 8+ years, perhaps it would deserve some wider dissemination incl. *why* is that.
Closest thing to come to mind is this, though I don't think it's a well known reference: https://corosync.github.io/corosync/doc/presentations/2017-Kronosnet-The-new-face-of-corosync-communications.pdf#page=3 In addition, there are minor notes here and there to be found, e.g., on the topic of the networks being presumably of comparable characteristics with RRP [2,3]: > It should probably be documented somewhere but may not be, with > redundant ring, both rings must be of approximately the same > performance. > The protocol is designed to limit to the speed of the slowest ring > - perhaps this is not working as intended. [1] https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/users/2019-March/025491.html [2] https://discuss.corosync.narkive.com/jUynoGxv/totem-implementation-is-unreliable-ring-faulty-and-retransmit-list#post2 [3] https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/2011-August/058536.html Can you perhaps give a definite answer here to arising "what" and "why", also perhaps to provide a credible incentive to upgrade out of something just sketchily referred to as "broken", please? -- Jan (Poki)
pgpEpILkEvBcV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
