Hi, Andrew
(2012/10/30 13:51), Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Yuusuke Iida
<iiday...@intellilink.co.jp> wrote:
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?
Mostly during startup.
Since corosync only knows nodeids, that is all we know about our peers
until they send us a message (which contains their name). So if we
need to send them a message before we hear from it, then we have no
way to how to address it. Likewise, if one suffers a failure we have
no idea who to shoot.
I understood these problems.
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.
I will probably amend that patch to drop everything after the first '.'
Does that sound like a good idea to you?
Because I do not so know a lot in FQDN, there is not the good idea.
I am worried about the problem that is different from this.
When the name that I got in "uname -n" is different from the name that I
got in name solution,
A thing treating using "uname -n" in RA might not work.
pgsql and mysql use "uname -n" as representative RA.
For example, it is the following cases.
uname: node1
DNS(or /etc/hosts): node1_eth1
How do you think about this?
Regards,
Yuusuke
_______________________________________________
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
--
----------------------------------------
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
