On Wed, 2014-11-12 at 16:45 -0500, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> John Horne wrote:
>
> > Given that failover only occurs if Apache, Tomcat or the NIC fail, I
> > can't find anything in log rotation that could cause this effect. For
> > failover to occur the Apache/Tomcat process must be non-existent (
On Wed, 2014-11-12 at 15:44 +, Richard Mann wrote:
>
> +1 to your logrotate thought; I'd dig deeper there.
>
> check /var/lib/logrotate.status; see if it doesn't match up with days
> the failover happens, that different httpd logs are rotating.
>
Given that failover only occurs if Apache, T
On Wed, 2014-11-12 at 11:12 -0500, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> John Horne wrote:
> >>
> > They are both virtual servers - so no UPS. Failover communication is
> > over the network.
>
> Um, bingo: are the host systems on UPS's? What happens on the *host*
> systems at 03:56? They don't, perhaps, take
Behalf Of
John Horne
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:36 AM
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Keepalived - spurious failovers
On Wed, 2014-11-12 at 10:27 -0500, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> John Horne wrote:
> >
> > We are using CentOS 6.6 and keepalived 1.2.13 on two
On Wed, 2014-11-12 at 10:27 -0500, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> John Horne wrote:
> >
> > We are using CentOS 6.6 and keepalived 1.2.13 on two servers for
> > failover, no load-balancing. Failover is governed by the NIC being
> > present, and the Apache and Tomcat processes being present. Both servers
5 matches
Mail list logo
