On 8 Oct 2014, at 9:20 am, Felix Zachlod <fz.li...@sis-gmbh.info> wrote:
> Hello Andrew, > > Am 06.10.2014 04:30, schrieb Andrew Beekhof: >> >> On 3 Oct 2014, at 5:07 am, Felix Zachlod <fz.li...@sis-gmbh.info> wrote: >> >>> Am 02.10.2014 18:02, schrieb Digimer: >>>> On 02/10/14 02:44 AM, Felix Zachlod wrote: >>>>> I am currently running 8.4.5 on to of Debian Wheezy with Pacemaker 1.1.7 >>>> >>>> Please upgrade to 1.1.10+! >>>> >>> >>> Are you referring to a special bug/ code change? I normally don't like >>> building all this stuff from source instead using the packages if there are >>> not very good reasons for it. I run some 1.1.7 debian base pacemaker >>> clusters for a long time now without any issue and I am sure that this >>> version seems to run very stable so as long as I am not facing a specific >>> problem with this version >> >> According to git, there are 1143 specific problems with 1.1.7 >> In total there have been 3815 commits and 5 releases in the last 2.5 years, >> we don't do all that for fun :-) > > I know that there have been a lot changes since this "ancient" version. But I > was just curios if there was something that in specific might be related to > my problem. I work tightly connected to software develepment in our company > and so i know that "newer" does not automatically mean "with less bugs" or > especially "with less bugs concerning ME". Particularly where the policy engine is concerned, it is actually true thanks to the 500+ regression tests we have. Also, there have definitely been improvements to master/slave in the last few releases. Check out the release notes, thats where I try to highlight the more interesting/important fixes. > Thats why I suspect "install the recent version" to be trial end error- which > might for sure help in some cases but does not enlight the corresponding > problem in any way. > >> On the other hand, if both sides think they have up-to-date data it might >> not be anything to do with pacemaker at all. > > That is what I suspect too. and why I passed this question to the drbd > mailing list, I am now nearly totally convinced that pacemaker isn't doing > anything wrong here cause the drbd RA sets a master score of 1000 on either > side which accoring to my constraints was the signal for pacemaker to promote. > > regards, Felix > > _______________________________________________ > 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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ 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
