From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF1D361CD9 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2022 17:10:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D5B9E3245C for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2022 17:10:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [IPv6:2001:1418:10:5::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 111AF32452 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2022 17:10:12 +0100 (CET) Received: by picard.linux.it (Postfix, from userid 10) id 5FFE53CA110; Sat, 19 Feb 2022 17:10:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from news by eraldo.lilliput.linux.it with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1nLSFG-00075l-32 for pve-user@lists.proxmox.com; Sat, 19 Feb 2022 17:06:02 +0100 From: Marco Gaiarin Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 18:55:18 +0100 Organization: Il gaio usa sempre TIN per le liste, fallo anche tu!!! Message-ID: <4535ei-8j11.ln1@hermione.lilliput.linux.it> X-Trace: eraldo.lilliput.linux.it 1645285122 24129 192.168.1.24 (19 Feb 2022 15:38:42 GMT) X-Mailer: tin/2.4.4-20191224 ("Millburn") (Linux/5.4.0-100-generic (x86_64)) X-Gateway-System: SmartGate 1.4.5 To: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.365 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DATE_IN_PAST_12_24 1.049 Date: is 12 to 24 hours before Received: date JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL 0.5 SPF set to ?all KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: [PVE-User] 2 host cluster, direct link: best configuration? X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 16:10:12 -0000 We have to setup a little 2 node cluster, with symmetrical nodes, using replication. For that, we have added a 10G interface, and setup a direct link between the two server. But how is better to setup the link? Some ideas: 1) another network, different from LAN pro: simple cons: replica happen only on cluster/corosync interface? So i have to setup corosync on direct link addresses? 2) ip override; eg LAN interfaces are 10.37.5.21/21 and 10.37.5.22/21; direct link interfaces are 10.37.5.21/32 and 10.37.5.22/32, and an explicitly route to other host pro: if direct link go down, we can simple tear down interfaces cons: no auto, interfaces have to tear down manually 3) setup a bridge around LAN and direct link cable, setup STP and leave the switches all the work. This config suggested, more or less, by: https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Full_Mesh_Network_for_Ceph_Server Thanks. -- Io chiedo quando sara` che l'uomo potra` imparare a vivere senza ammazzare e il vento si posera` (F. Guccini)