network: rephrase corosync and bonds recommendations

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
649098a64e 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>
This commit is contained in:
Aaron Lauterer 2023-03-24 14:03:47 +01:00 committed by Thomas Lamprecht
parent e37748c16a
commit 4ab400d1cd

View File

@ -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