[pve-devel] [PATCH docs] network: rephrase corosync and bonds recommendations

[pve-devel] [PATCH docs] network: rephrase corosync and bonds recommendations

[Aaron Lauterer]

I suspect that the old one seems to be related to multicast traffic and
LACP bonds.

The link in the comment is dead by now. It seems this is one occasion
where the internet actually forgets as I cannot find the actual message
of that mailing list thread anymore. Therefore I cannot say for sure
what the exact issue was. But it was introduced in commit
649098a64ecaffc7215ec0556e76787595b38e88 which unfortunately also
doesn't have more information.

Since with Corosync 3, unicast is used, that recommentation is probably
not accurate anymore. At least I am not aware of any issues with
Corosync on LACP bonds in recent years. Therefore, rather recommend to
configure Corosync on multiple networks instead of bonds to follow best
practice.

Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
---
 pve-network.adoc | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/pve-network.adoc b/pve-network.adoc
index 0c67c62..4567ed4 100644
--- a/pve-network.adoc
+++ b/pve-network.adoc
@@ -337,11 +337,11 @@ traffic.
 
 If your switch support the LACP (IEEE 802.3ad) protocol then we recommend using
 the corresponding bonding mode (802.3ad). Otherwise you should generally use the
-active-backup mode. +
-// http://lists.linux-ha.org/pipermail/linux-ha/2013-January/046295.html
-If you intend to run your cluster network on the bonding interfaces, then you
-have to use active-passive mode on the bonding interfaces, other modes are
-unsupported.
+active-backup mode.
+
+For the cluster network (Corosync) we recommend configuring it with multiple
+networks. Corosync does not need a bond for network reduncancy as it can switch
+between networks by itself, if one becomes unusable.
 
 The following bond configuration can be used as distributed/shared
 storage network. The benefit would be that you get more speed and the
-- 
2.30.2

[pve-devel] applied: [PATCH docs] network: rephrase corosync and bonds recommendations

[Thomas Lamprecht]

Am 24/03/2023 um 14:03 schrieb Aaron Lauterer:
> I suspect that the old one seems to be related to multicast traffic and
> LACP bonds.
> 
> The link in the comment is dead by now. It seems this is one occasion
> where the internet actually forgets as I cannot find the actual message
> of that mailing list thread anymore. Therefore I cannot say for sure
> what the exact issue was. But it was introduced in commit
> 649098a64ecaffc7215ec0556e76787595b38e88 which unfortunately also
> doesn't have more information.
> 
> Since with Corosync 3, unicast is used, that recommentation is probably
> not accurate anymore. At least I am not aware of any issues with
> Corosync on LACP bonds in recent years. Therefore, rather recommend to
> configure Corosync on multiple networks instead of bonds to follow best
> practice.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
> ---
>  pve-network.adoc | 10 +++++-----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
>

applied, thanks!