Qdevice VS Adding Link1 - Recommendation ?

[DC-CA1]

Any advise based on experience with proxmox clustering .

We are configuring a new cluster and will add a secondary path in Case of Bonding issue or severe stack outage.

Qdevice on secondary link
Versus
Proxmox Cluster link1 on secondary link

 

[gurubert]

If you have an even number of Proxmox nodes you should add a Qdevice. With an odd number of nodes you do not need one.
A second physically independent path for the corosync communication is always a good idea.

 

[DC-CA1]

If you have an even number of Proxmox nodes you should add a Qdevice. With an odd number of nodes you do not need one.
A second physically independent path for the corosync communication is always a good idea.

will try to setup a LAB as i think a few years ago we faced a issue trying to get GFS2 working on a shared SAS enclosure. DLM i think was not able to handle the 2 network and i think that was documented to as a limitation but cant find anything related..

 

[gurubert]

With 2 corosync rings you have to add protocol=sctp to /etc/dlm/dlm.conf

 

[DC-CA1]

With 2 corosync rings you have to add protocol=sctp to /etc/dlm/dlm.conf

thx for the advice
any miracle idea how to apply this without shutting down all services ?

 

[gurubert]

any miracle idea how to apply this without shutting down all services ?

No, sorry.

 

[DC-CA1]

No, sorry.

sucessfuly enabled ring 1 with STCP. what a good improvement as it was preventing me from adding a link to proxmox as well

thx you