Bug 1332692 - Document avoiding DHCP for corosync nodes
Summary: Document avoiding DHCP for corosync nodes
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
Classification: Red Hat
Component: doc-High_Availability_Add-On_Reference
Version: 7.3
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Steven J. Levine
QA Contact: ecs-bugs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-05-03 19:33 UTC by Steven J. Levine
Modified: 2019-03-06 00:57 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-11-07 21:35:48 UTC
Target Upstream Version:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Comment 2 Steven J. Levine 2016-09-15 16:17:26 UTC
There was no obvious place to add this warning to the Pacemaker reference -- I could add a "considerations" section to the overview and include this, but at this point that would be the only consideration in that section.  Maybe as we come up with more...

So I added a note to the only place we really say anything about corosync, when we talk about the Pacemaker configuration files in Section 1.4.

Does this note address the problem?

http://jenkinscat.gsslab.pnq.redhat.com:8080/job/doc-Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux-7-High_Availability_Add-On_Reference%20%28html-single%29/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tmp/en-US/html-single/index.html#s1-installation-HAAR

(Looking at it again it still looks wrong.  But can I really have an entire section called "Do not use DHCP with corosync"?

Comment 3 Steven J. Levine 2016-09-15 16:27:01 UTC
Update:  I do have another consideration: 16-node limit on clusters.

So I will add a section called something like "cluster configuration considerations" and move this note there, along with the node-limit.

I'll update this BZ when that gets done, in just a bit.

Comment 4 Steven J. Levine 2016-09-15 16:42:51 UTC
The two new considerations are now section 1.5:

http://jenkinscat.gsslab.pnq.redhat.com:8080/job/doc-Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux-7-High_Availability_Add-On_Reference%20%28html-single%29/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tmp/en-US/html-single/index.html#s1-configfileoverview-HAAR

Ken: Could you look that new small section over for approval/review?

Comment 5 Ken Gaillot 2016-09-16 16:31:21 UTC
(In reply to Steven J. Levine from comment #4)
> The two new considerations are now section 1.5:
> 
> http://jenkinscat.gsslab.pnq.redhat.com:8080/job/doc-
> Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux-7-High_Availability_Add-On_Reference%20%28html-
> single%29/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tmp/en-US/html-single/index.html#s1-
> configfileoverview-HAAR
> 
> Ken: Could you look that new small section over for approval/review?

The only change I would make is to say that the 16-node limit applies to full cluster nodes. The cluster may be expanded beyond that using Pacemaker Remote nodes.

Comment 6 Steven J. Levine 2016-09-16 18:54:08 UTC
I have updated that caveat as follows:

Red Hat does not support cluster deployments greater than 16 full cluster nodes. It is possible, however, to scale beyond that limit with remote nodes running the pacemaker_remote service. For information on the pacemaker_remote service, see Section 9.3, “The pacemaker_remote Service”.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.