On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Yuusuke IIDA <iiday...@intellilink.co.jp> wrote: > Hi, Andrew > > (2011/02/09 23:55), Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> >> 2011/2/7 Yuusuke IIDA<iiday...@intellilink.co.jp>: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am going to manage the virtual machine in environment of >>> Pacemaker-1.0.10. >>> >>> However, the problem that two virtual machines are started occurs when a >>> transition graph of "Live Migration" was canceled on the way. >>> >>> I show a procedure to generate below a problem. >>> >>> 1. I was going to let you do "Live Migration" of a virtual machine from >>> host 1 >>> to host 2. >>> >>> 2. In the middle of "Live Migration", monitor by pingd broke down with >>> host 2, >>> and an attribute changed. >>> >>> 3. A virtual machine is done start of with host 3 by the management of >>> the cluster. >>> Because the virtual machine which moved in migrate_to with host 1 then >>> works, I >>> am in a condition that two virtual machines start. >>> >>> This phenomenon thinks that it is revised in Pacemaker-1.1. >> >> I'm not at all surprised that the 1.1 behavior was better, we put a >> lot of work into it recently. >> >>> If this phenomenon is a bug, I want you to revise it in Pacemaker-1.0. >> >> The necessary patch is quite large and invasive, I don't feel its >> appropriate to backport into 1.0. > > Will it be not to be able to recommend it in pacemaker-1.0 to move a > resource by setting of "allow_migrate=true"?
Well you can set that and if the RA doesn't fail everything will be happy. But as you saw, the recovery characteristics if/when part of the migration fails are not ideal. _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker
