On 06/23/2017 11:52 AM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > On 06/23/2017 11:24 AM, Jan Pokorný wrote: > >> People using ifdown or the iproute-based equivalent seem far >> too prevalent, even if for long time bystanders the idea looks >> continually disproved ad nauseam. > > Has anyone had a network card fail recently and what does that look like > on modern kernels? -- That's an honest question, I have not seen that in > forever (fingers crossed knock on wood). > > I.e. is the expectation that real life failure will be "nice" to > corosync actually warranted?
I don't think there is such an expectation. If I understand correctly, the issue with using ifdown as a test is two-fold: it's not a good simulation of a typical network outage, and corosync is unable to recover from an interface that goes down and later comes back up, so you can only test the "down" part. Implementing some sort of recovery mechanism in that situation is a goal for corosync 3, I believe. _______________________________________________ Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
