On 10/04/19 15:31 +0200, Jan Pokorný wrote: > 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?
No conclusive summary on the subject (so far taken rather for a fact here, where I guess corosync experts are a vast minority) to afford us the liberty of educated choice regarding the upgrade beyond allegedly broken RRP? -- Jan (Poki)
pgpcvXzR9Wtfy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
