On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Yuusuke Iida <iiday...@intellilink.co.jp> wrote: > 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?
You can use crm_node --name to get the same name that Pacemaker is using. _______________________________________________ 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
