>>> Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> schrieb am 23.06.2017 um 19:12 in Nachricht <ad8f47c0-5c82-97ac-2aec-33dd57f59...@redhat.com>: > 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).
The last NIC failure we had caused an error interrupt on the PCIe bus (effectively a kernel reboot) ;-) >> >> 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 _______________________________________________ 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