Should redundant corosync links be on seperate VLAN?

N

nCursed

New Member
Feb 10, 2025
2
0
1
After reading through PVE CM Redundancy, I am left wondering whether or not there is any reason not to use the same VLAN for the two separate physical corosync links? I see the example shows what presumably are separate subnets, but I see no explicit mention on whether or not such a logical separation is critical for a well functioning redundant corosync cluster or not. I see only that the links should be physically separate.
 
As long as the VLAN only see's corosync traffic, and at least one interface is dedicated to corosync (as link0) you should be good.

I have setup clusters with the dedicated interface as link0 (tagged to the corosync vlan) and the fallback (link1) is on the bonded trunk interface that carries VM traffic. You don't want any latency/jitter on the corosync link, so hence the need for a dedicated physical interface.
 
Thank you for replying!

Not sure if I understand your answer correctly, or perhaps I wasn't clear in my question.

I understand corosync should be seperate from all other traffic. But I am wondering whether it is important that the two corosync links are also seperated logically (eg. corosync-vlan1 & corosync-vlan2), or whether connecting the two (physically) seperate links to the exact same vlan is permitted / good practice.

I couldn't find an answer on this in the docs, other than how it only refers to the importance of the two links being physically seperate, and the example showing what is presumably two different logical networks.

Thanks again
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom