On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Gregg Stock <gr...@damagecontrolusa.com> wrote: > That looks good. They were all the same and had the correct ip addresses.
So you've got both healthy rings, and all 5 nodes have 5 members in the membership list? Then this would make it a Pacemaker problem. IIUC the code causing Pacemaker to discard the update from a node that is "not in our membership" has actually been removed from 1.1.7[1] so an upgrade may not be a bad idea, but you'll probably have to wait for a few more days until packages become available. Still, out of curiosity, and since you're saying this is a test cluster: what happens if you shut down corosync and Pacemaker on *all* the nodes, and bring it back up? We've had a few people report these "not in our membership" issues on the list before, and they seem to appear in a very sporadic and transient fashion, so the root cause (which may well be totally trivial) hasn't really been found out -- as far as I can tell, at least. Hence, my question of whether the issue persists after a full cluster shutdown. Florian [1] https://github.com/ClusterLabs/pacemaker/commit/03f6105592281901cc10550b8ad19af4beb5f72f -- note Andrew will rightfully flame me to a crisp if I've misinterpreted that commit, so caveat lector. :) -- Need help with High Availability? http://www.hastexo.com/now _______________________________________________ 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://bugs.clusterlabs.org
