14.03.2011 18:27, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> I just ran this past David and you're absolutely right.
> Applying now and we're going to try and get both your patches in for 6.1
These patches seem to solve what bz#664958 describes. Although I still
have some problems with how fencing works (cannot tell
On 03/17/2011 11:54 PM, Simone Gotti wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When using corosync + pcmk v1 starting both corosync and pacemakerd (and
> I think also using heartbeat or anything other than cman) as quorum
> provider, at startup in the CIB will not be a entry for
> the nodes that are not in cluster.
>
> In
Charles KOPROWSKI writes:
>
> Le 14/03/2011 09:43, Andrew Beekhof a écrit :
> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
> >> 11.03.2011 16:27, Andrew Beekhof:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Charles KOPROWSKI
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> Is there any possibility to mov
I have a process (BP) that I need to have running on two servers, in a
Master/Slave configuration.
host_ip_1 is preferable to host_ip_2, so if it is available, the process
should always run on that server.
In my OCF file, I have the following sequence that occurs during
startup:
function billing
18.03.2011 17:07, Pavel Levshin:
Imagine a network where connectivity restores for a couple of seconds
then breaks again. A node becomes online, monitoring actions are
directed, then connectivity fails. This node will be unclean offline,
then.
And fencing may fail in this scenario, too, b
18.03.2011 2:52, tariq fillah:
I meen this:
crm configure primitive ping ocf:pacemaker:ping \
op monitor depth="0" timeout="20s" interval="10"
**
clone pingdClone ping \
meta globally-unique="false" target-role="Started"
***
crm configure location pingjb ClusterI
18.03.2011 12:44, Lars Marowsky-Bree пишет:
messages can't be lost internally. A network dropping a packet doesn't
result in lost state, because the protocols will resent it (of course).
Imagine a network where connectivity restores for a couple of seconds
then breaks again. A node becomes on
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:35:01AM +0100, Marko Potocnik wrote:
> If you use symbolic links in Filesystem resource agent directory parameter,
> then monitoring operation fails, because actual mount point in /proc/mounts
> (or the output of mount command) is diferent as the configured one.
Why
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:21:40PM +0100, Holger Teutsch wrote:
> Hi,
> I would like to submit 2 patches of an initial implementation for
> discussion.
>
> Patch 1 implements migration of the Master role of an m/s resource to
> another node in crm_resource
> Patch 2 adds support for the shell
On 03/18/2011 11:35 AM, Marko Potocnik wrote:
> If you use symbolic links in Filesystem resource agent directory
> parameter, then monitoring operation fails, because actual mount point
> in /proc/mounts (or the output of mount command) is diferent as the
> configured one.
>
> Here is the patch th
Lars Marowsky-Bree @ 18/3/2011 6:44 -0300 dixit:
Also this design conflicts with idea of "quorum node", which is not
supposed to run resources. Quorum node, by it's existence only, may
cause resource failure!
Quorum nodes - i.e., a full pacemaker node - are a broken idea, and work
around a de
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:29:12AM +0530, rakesh k wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I am unable to migrate apache resource between the nodes
>
> 1) To monitor apache resource i had used status url and reg-ex pattern is *
> "*"* which find the exact pattern in statusurl, for monitoring and
> fail-over con
Hi,
I would like to submit 2 patches of an initial implementation for
discussion.
Patch 1 implements migration of the Master role of an m/s resource to
another node in crm_resource
Patch 2 adds support for the shell.
crm_resource does this with options
"crm_resource --move --resource ms_test --m
If you use symbolic links in Filesystem resource agent directory parameter,
then monitoring operation fails, because actual mount point in /proc/mounts
(or the output of mount command) is diferent as the configured one.
Here is the patch that fixes this:
--- Filesystem_new_org 2011-03-18 11:32:3
On 2011-03-17T23:14:45, Pavel Levshin wrote:
> To be precise, the cluster will behave fine if the RA is missing,
> and cluster tries to "monitor", and all infrastructure works fine
> (so return code "not installed" is not lost somewhere as it have
> been in my case two weeks ago).
Hi Pavel,
mes
hello,
On 2011-03-18 08:37, c...@itri.org.tw wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> I am a new member to this mailing list. Please let me know if the
> explanation is not clear enough.
>
>
>
> I setup a Centos 5.4 cluster environment (2 nodes, alpha1 and alpha2)
> with the following software:
>
> Cor
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
> 17.03.2011 11:05, Andrew Beekhof:
>>
>> You don't need fake RAs.
>> The cluster will behave just fine if the RA is missing, just not if
>> it's present and reports bogus status
>
> To be precise, the cluster will behave fine if the RA is miss
Dear all,
I am a new member to this mailing list. Please let me know if the explanation
is not clear enough.
I setup a Centos 5.4 cluster environment (2 nodes, alpha1 and alpha2) with the
following software:
Corosync 1.3.0
Pacemaker 1.0.10.
Drbd 8.3.9
The environment is constructed as Active/P
18 matches
Mail list logo
