[Ocfs2-users] Cluster setup

[Sunil Mushran]

That was the case when OCFS2 did not support custom network timeouts.
The default timeouts were too low to support bonding.

1.2.5-1 and later supports custom timeouts.

With the upcoming 1.2.7-1, the default timeouts will be updated to
the new values. Refer FAQ for the details.

Ulf Zimmermann wrote:
> You have Oracle people telling us not to use bonding.
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sunil Mushran [mailto:Sunil.Mushran at oracle.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 15:28
>> To: Ulf Zimmermann
>> Cc: Randy Ramsdell; ocfs2-users at oss.oracle.com
>> Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-users] Cluster setup
>>
>> How is this a fs problem?
>>
>> Ulf Zimmermann wrote:
>>     
>>> We don't and when we were investigating why we had on the ProCurve
>>> 4108gl reassembly problems, we were specific asked if we are doing
>>> bonding or VLAN tagging (neither we were doing). Just looks like the
>>> ProCurve are loosing packets without telling so. We switched in
>>>       
> Cisco
>   
>>> 2960G-48 with Jumbo Frames now and haven't had any reassembly
>>>       
> timeouts
>   
>>> since then. Global Cache timeout has gone down significant. Each
>>> Interconnect for Oracle 10G has its own Cisco 2960G-48 now.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Sunil Mushran [mailto:Sunil.Mushran at oracle.com]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 15:13
>>>> To: Ulf Zimmermann
>>>> Cc: Randy Ramsdell; ocfs2-users at oss.oracle.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-users] Cluster setup
>>>>
>>>> Use network bonding.
>>>>
>>>> Ulf Zimmermann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: ocfs2-users-bounces at oss.oracle.com [mailto:ocfs2-users-
>>>>>> bounces at oss.oracle.com] On Behalf Of Alexei_Roudnev
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:10
>>>>>> To: Sunil Mushran; Randy Ramsdell
>>>>>> Cc: ocfs2-users at oss.oracle.com
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-users] Cluster setup
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I explained you:
>>>>>> 1 - single heartbeat interface IS A BUG for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> I haven't really followed the whole discussion but that point
>>>>>           
> above
>   
>>> did
>>>
>>>       
>>>>> just come to my mind a few days ago when we replaced our HP
>>>>>           
> ProCurve
>   
>>>>> 4108gl used for 3 separate Interconnects on 10g, where only 1 also
>>>>> carries the OCFS2 heartbeat. So if that switch dies, OCFS2 will go
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>> down
>>>
>>>       
>>>>> while Oracle 10g could survive (if OCFS2 wouldn't die).
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to agree that is a bad design at this point. Heartbeat
>>>>>           
> should
>   
>>>>> also be on at least 2 links for OCFS2.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ulf.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>