[SOLVED] Why do KNET chose ring with higher priority instead of lower one (as said in manual?)

W

Whatever

Renowned Member
Nov 19, 2012
398
64
93
Could anyone explain why do corosync (KNET) choose best link with the highest priority instead of the lowest one (as written in PVE wiki)?

Very confused with corosync3 indeed...

Code: 
quorum {
  provider: corosync_votequorum
}

totem {
  cluster_name: amarao-cluster
  config_version: 20
  interface {
    bindnetaddr: 172.16.253.101
    ringnumber: 0
    linknumber: 0
    knet_link_priority: 10
  }
  interface {
    bindnetaddr: 172.16.252.101
    ringnumber: 1
    linknumber: 1
    knet_link_priority: 1
  }
  ip_version: ipv4
  rrp_mode: passive
  secauth: on
  version: 2
  token: 5000
}

Code: 
Sep 14 11:19:09 pve-node1 pmxcfs[2871]: [dcdb] notice: wrote new corosync config '/etc/corosync/corosync.conf' (version = 20)
Sep 14 11:19:09 pve-node1 corosync[3056]:   [CFG   ] Config reload requested by node 2
Sep 14 11:19:09 pve-node1 corosync[3056]:   [TOTEM ] Configuring link 0
Sep 14 11:19:09 pve-node1 corosync[3056]:   [TOTEM ] Configured link number 0: local addr: 172.16.253.101, port=5405
Sep 14 11:19:09 pve-node1 corosync[3056]:   [TOTEM ] Configuring link 1
Sep 14 11:19:09 pve-node1 corosync[3056]:   [TOTEM ] Configured link number 1: local addr: 172.16.252.101, port=5406
Sep 14 11:19:09 pve-node1 corosync[3056]:   [KNET  ] host: host: 6 (passive) best link: 0 (pri: 10)
Sep 14 11:19:09 pve-node1 corosync[3056]:   [KNET  ] host: host: 6 (passive) best link: 0 (pri: 10)
Sep 14 11:19:09 pve-node1 corosync[3056]:   [KNET  ] host: host: 8 (passive) best link: 0 (pri: 10)
Sep 14 11:19:09 pve-node1 corosync[3056]:   [KNET  ] host: host: 8 (passive) best link: 0 (pri: 10)
Sep 14 11:19:09 pve-node1 corosync[3056]:   [KNET  ] host: host: 7 (passive) best link: 0 (pri: 10)
Sep 14 11:19:09 pve-node1 corosync[3056]:   [KNET  ] host: host: 7 (passive) best link: 0 (pri: 10)
Sep 14 11:19:09 pve-node1 corosync[3056]:   [KNET  ] host: host: 5 (passive) best link: 0 (pri: 10)
Sep 14 11:19:09 pve-node1 corosync[3056]:   [KNET  ] host: host: 5 (passive) best link: 0 (pri: 10)
Sep 14 11:19:09 pve-node1 corosync[3056]:   [KNET  ] host: host: 4 (passive) best link: 0 (pri: 10)
Sep 14 11:19:09 pve-node1 corosync[3056]:   [KNET  ] host: host: 4 (passive) best link: 0 (pri: 10)
Sep 14 11:19:09 pve-node1 corosync[3056]:   [KNET  ] host: host: 3 (passive) best link: 0 (pri: 10)
Sep 14 11:19:09 pve-node1 corosync[3056]:   [KNET  ] host: host: 3 (passive) best link: 0 (pri: 10)
Sep 14 11:19:09 pve-node1 corosync[3056]:   [KNET  ] host: host: 2 (passive) best link: 0 (pri: 10)
Sep 14 11:19:09 pve-node1 corosync[3056]:   [KNET  ] host: host: 2 (passive) best link: 0 (pri: 10) 
...
 
Whatever said:
Here is an answer...
https://github.com/corosync/corosync/commit/0a323ff2ed0f2aff9cb691072906e69cb96ed662

PVE wiki should be get updated accordingly

Dumn corosync...
Click to expand...

That change of one word from "lowest" to "highest" doesn't explain anything.
the active link with the highest priority will be used. If one or more
Click to expand...
The highest priority will allways be 1. Everything else is lower priority.
So, when something is named as priority everyone is assuming decelerating importance.
May be because I'm not a native english speaker, I would rather named it "weight" over "priority".
That would imply: more weighted route is more important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roggeb
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom