On 2013-07-24T21:40:40, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote:
> > Statically assigned nodeids?
> Wouldn't hurt, but you still need to bring down the still-active node to get
> it to talk to the new node.
> Which sucks
Hm. But ... corosync/pacemaker ought to identify the node via the
nodeid. If it comes back with a different IP address, that shouldn't be
a problem.
Oh. *thud* Just realized that it's bound to be one for unicast
communications, not so much mcast. Seems we may need some corosync magic
commands to edit the nodelist at runtime. (Or is that already possible
and I just don't know how? ;-)
Regards,
Lars
--
Architect Storage/HA
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB
21284 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________
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
