Devel December 2017

devel@lists.kronosnet.org

4 participants
5 discussions

kronosnet v0.9 (aka 1.0 Release Candidate 1) released
by Fabio M. Di Nitto 16 Dec '17

16 Dec '17

All, We are pleased to announce the second public release candidate of kronosnet v1.0 - which we are calling v0.9 kronosnet (or knet for short) is the new underlying network protocol for Linux HA components (corosync), that features ability to use multiple links between nodes, active/active and active/passive link failover policies, automatic link recovery, FIPS compliant encryption (nss and/or openssl), automatic PMTUd and in general better performances compared to the old network protocol. The source tarballs can be downloaded here: https://www.kronosnet.org/releases/ Upstream resources and contacts: https://kronosnet.org/ https://github.com/kronosnet/kronosnet/ https://ci.kronosnet.org/ https://trello.com/kronosnet (TODO list and activities tracking) https://goo.gl/9ZvkLS (google shared drive with presentations and diagrams) IRC: #kronosnet on Freenode https://lists.kronosnet.org/mailman/listinfo/users https://lists.kronosnet.org/mailman/listinfo/devel https://lists.kronosnet.org/mailman/listinfo/commits Known issues in this release: * Knet will fail to work on Fedora 26 arm when built with clang. This is a known issue with clang compiler that is fixed in more recent versions of clang. * Knet will fail to build with clang on rhel7 + epel version of clang. This is a known issue with clang compiler that is fixed in more recent versions of clang. * Applications performing configuration changes might experience a long waiting time when calling into the knet API. This is a known interaction issue between the PMTUd thread inside knet and external API locking. https://trello.com/c/uPMjKRYy/847-fix-pmtud-locking-with-external-api * Running the knet test suite with valgrind (make check-memcheck) will fail with Debian Experimental glibc due to a known bug in valgrind. * Running the knet test suite with valgrind on FreeBSD is no longer supported. The valgrind version on FreeBSD is too old and generates too many false positives. Also, please refer to build-aux/check.mk on how to use valgrind in combination with knet. Some platforms requires extra options to work properly. Cheers, The knet developer team

1 0

PMTUd remaining issues
by Fabio M. Di Nitto 10 Dec '17

10 Dec '17

Hey Chrissie, I am still having issues with the latest pmtu code: 1) using crypto, just with knet_bench ping_data test, the MTU changes on each run (I think you mentioned that on IRC, but not sure it's the same problem). 2) there is a spurious link down event on MTU change. I can reproduce this one without crypto and with ping_data test (I set it at 10 secs interval to avoid waiting minutes). Start knet_bench on both nodes with standard MTU at 1500. At the end of each run, change MTU on the interfaces to: - 1400 (good). - 1500 (good). - 1600 (good, mtu doesn't change) - back to 1500 (link down event) from time to time, the first MTU after the down/up event is wrong the code is stable on heavy load, I haven't tested yet load + changing MTU at runtime. I'll do that once the basic tests are passing. Cheers Fabio

2 1

0.9 RC - merge freeze
by Fabio M. Di Nitto 05 Dec '17

05 Dec '17

Hi guys, we have one PR open (plugins/modules) and one bug fix (PMTUd) pending. We will complete the merge of both and we will not accept any more changes for 0.9 RC. Between 0.9 and 1.0 we will only accept critical bug fixes. Any other change is 2.0/1.1 material. Cheers Fabio

3 2

plugin future (after 1.0)
by Fabio M. Di Nitto 05 Dec '17

05 Dec '17

Hey Feri, what do you think for a 1.1 or 2.0 feature: https://trello.com/c/nJLaEOMw/735-consider-to-develop-a-more-dynamic-plugin… Also, if you have a trello account, I'd be happy to add you there to better track who is working on what. Cheers Fabio

1 0

Re: [kronosnet/kronosnet] a2f08e: Switch over all plugins to the module system
by Fabio M. Di Nitto 01 Dec '17

01 Dec '17

Hey Feri, let me stop you a minute here. what is the end goal of this work? We originally didn´t implement the modules model because it has several downsides for little benefit, based on the experience we had with corosync modules in the past. I think it might be beneficial to have a chat about those major changes before you implement them :-) I *hate* for people to waste time on stuff that might not merge. Cheers Fabio On 11/28/2017 8:07 AM, GitHub wrote: > Branch: refs/heads/modules > Home: https://github.com/kronosnet/kronosnet > Commit: a2f08e189c0143381f9f3ac5031d6b5dd32f5432 > https://github.com/kronosnet/kronosnet/commit/a2f08e189c0143381f9f3ac5031d6… > Author: Ferenc Wágner <wferi(a)debian.org> > Date: 2017-11-28 (Tue, 28 Nov 2017) >

4 18

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

Devel December 2017