[pve-devel] [PATCH docs 4/7] pvecm: extend cluster Requirements
Aaron Lauterer
a.lauterer at proxmox.com
Fri Jun 27 14:47:24 CEST 2025
On 2025-05-08 13:54, Robin Christ wrote:
>
> On 07.05.25 17:22, Kevin Schneider wrote:
>> IMO this isn't strict enough and we should empathize on the importance
>> of the problem. I would go for
>>
>> To ensure reliable Corosync redundancy, it's essential to use at least
>> two separate physical and logical networks. Single bonded interfaces
>> do not provide Corosync redundancy. When a bonded interface fails
>> without redundancy, it can lead to asymmetric communication, causing
>> all nodes to lose quorum—even if more than half of them can still
>> communicate with each other.
>
>
> Although a bond on the interface together with MLAG'd switches CAN
> provide further resiliency in case of switch or single NIC PHY failure.
> It does not protect against total failure of the NIC of course.
>
>
> I think adding a "typical topologies" or "example topologies" to the
> docs might be a good idea?
>
>
> Below my personal, opinionated recommendation after deploying quite a
> good amount of Proxmox clusters. Of course I don't expect everyone to
> agree with this... But hopefully it can serve as a starting point?
>
Thanks for the feedback! I do agree, having some practical example
configurations is a good idea to have. A bit too much for this series
IMHO though. But something we can expand on in the future, ideally with
a few graphics for each variant.
I'll keep that in mind for the future!
[snip]
More information about the pve-devel
mailing list