Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH docs 4/7] pvecm: extend cluster Requirements

[Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>]

On  2025-05-08  13:54, Robin Christ wrote:
> 
> On 07.05.25 17:22, Kevin Schneider wrote:
>> IMO this isn't strict enough and we should empathize on the importance 
>> of the problem. I would go for
>>
>> To ensure reliable Corosync redundancy, it's essential to use at least 
>> two separate physical and logical networks. Single bonded interfaces 
>> do not provide Corosync redundancy. When a bonded interface fails 
>> without redundancy, it can lead to asymmetric communication, causing 
>> all nodes to lose quorum—even if more than half of them can still 
>> communicate with each other.
> 
> 
> Although a bond on the interface together with MLAG'd switches CAN 
> provide further resiliency in case of switch or single NIC PHY failure. 
> It does not protect against total failure of the NIC of course.
> 
> 
> I think adding a "typical topologies" or "example topologies" to the 
> docs might be a good idea?
> 
> 
> Below my personal, opinionated recommendation after deploying quite a 
> good amount of Proxmox clusters. Of course I don't expect everyone to 
> agree with this... But hopefully it can serve as a starting point?
> 

Thanks for the feedback! I do agree, having some practical example 
configurations is a good idea to have. A bit too much for this series 
IMHO though. But something we can expand on in the future, ideally with 
a few graphics for each variant.

I'll keep that in mind for the future!

[snip]


_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel