Hi Honza,
>>> In addition, is there a point to be careful about when we continue > using >> "ative"? >> >> Only (but big) problem with active is that active doesn't make > progress >> if one of link fails until link is marked as failed. Passive always >> makes progress (= works) even link is failed and failure is not yet >> detected. I want you to teach Bugzilla of the contents of the problem that happened in "active" if you know it. ...Or information about the constitution of a cluster and the resource that the problem happens. We want to discuss the future policy based on the information. Best Regard, Hideo Yamauchi. ----- Original Message ----- > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: COROSYNC <[email protected]> > Cc: > Date: 2015/7/28, Tue 09:55 > Subject: Re: [corosync] [Question] About "Add note about rrp active beeing > unsupported". of corosync2.3.5 > > Hi Honza, > > Thank you for comments. > > >>> In addition, is there a point to be careful about when we continue > using >> "ative"? >> >> Only (but big) problem with active is that active doesn't make > progress >> if one of link fails until link is marked as failed. Passive always >> makes progress (= works) even link is failed and failure is not yet >> detected. > > > > Does this mean that "actvie" setting delays the delivery to the node > of the message of the normal interface until the interface that failed > becomes > "faulty"? > > Does it mean that the reconstitution of the cluster may happen until an > inoperative interface becomes "faulty" by this delay? > > If it is this phenomenon, I can understand a problem. > >> But as long as you are happy with rrp active, use active. > > > Because the number of the nodes that we treated was not so big, a big problem > of > "active" has not occurred. > > I argue with a member and think about the use of future "rrp_mode". > > Best Regards, > Hideo Yamauchi. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Jan Friesse <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected]; COROSYNC <[email protected]> >> Cc: >> Date: 2015/7/27, Mon 18:46 >> Subject: Re: [corosync] [Question] About "Add note about rrp active > beeing unsupported". of corosync2.3.5 >> >> [email protected] napsal(a): >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I thank for release of corosync2.3.5. >>> >>> We used the "rrp_mode:active" setting so far. >>> >>> The "rrp_mode: active" did not seem to be recommended when I > saw >> release note of corosync2.3.5. >>> >>> >>> What is the cause that was not recommended from this time? >> >> It was actually never recommended, only change it's now noted in the > man >> page. >> >> >>> In addition, is there a point to be careful about when we continue > using >> "ative"? >> >> Only (but big) problem with active is that active doesn't make progress > >> if one of link fails until link is marked as failed. Passive always >> makes progress (= works) even link is failed and failure is not yet >> detected. >> >> But as long as you are happy with rrp active, use active. >> >> Regards, >> Honza >> >>> >>> * We want to know a problem and the influence that were not > recommended >> in detail. >>> >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Hideo Yamauchi. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
