Hi, Andrew
(2012/10/26 9:31), Andrew Beekhof wrote:
When I described the IP which I used in ring0 in /etc/hosts, I confirmed
>that start of pacemaker succeeded.
>
[moved first question to the end]
I understood that name solution was necessary.
>Was there any problem with a conventional method to use uname()?
The problem with uname() is that your peers don't know the value until
you send it to them.
Which creates a conceptual race condition - how do you send a message
to (or fence) a peer who's name you don't know yet?
sorry, I did not understand it a little.
What kind of situation is it?
>Will setting to convert IP of such ring0 into the name be necessary by all
>means in future?
In a word "no":-)
There are a couple of options:
- you can specify the names to use in corosync.conf (nodelist)
using a nodelist doesn't prevent you from using multicast
- you can setup /etc/hosts as you did above
- I have just now re-instated the uname() default for corosync 2.0
cluster types. It didn't occur to me that people wouldn't set up
anything:-)
The patch is:https://github.com/beekhof/pacemaker/commit/9a81945
can you give it a try?
I tried this correction.
The correction seems to run without a problem.
Thanks,
Yuusuke
--
----------------------------------------
METRO SYSTEMS CO., LTD
Yuusuke Iida
Mail: iiday...@intellilink.co.jp
----------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
