[Pacemaker] [PATCH] This is an alternate fix for Bug #2528 based on a patch to the

2011-09-14 Thread Rainer Weikusat
# HG changeset patch # User Rainer Weikusat # Date 1316036167 -3600 # Branch stable-1.0 # Node ID ea611ef8c1e6a9d294d9d0dff6db2f317232292b # Parent a15ead49e20f047e129882619ed075a65c1ebdfe This is an alternate fix for Bug #2528 based on a patch to the Debian Squeeze pacemaker package used to prov

[Pacemaker] pacemaker 1.0.11-1~bpo60+1 in Debian/Squeeze backport

2011-09-14 Thread Jean-Francois Malouin
Hi, Sorry for the rather lame question but I see that Debian/Squeeze has pacemaker 1.0.11-1~bpo60+1 in the backports. Can any points me to a list of feature changes from the current 'stable' version 1.0.9.1+hg15626-1? thanks jf ___ Pacemaker mailing li

Re: [Pacemaker] location syntax for crm shell.

2011-09-14 Thread Florian Haas
On 2011-09-14 17:29, Schaefer, Diane E wrote: > Hi, > > We are running a two-node cluster using pacemaker 1.1.5-18.1 with > heartbeat 3.0.4-41.1. I am confused on the correct syntax to use when > adding a location constraint using the crm shell. I would like a > resource to always run on a par

[Pacemaker] location syntax for crm shell.

2011-09-14 Thread Schaefer, Diane E
Hi, We are running a two-node cluster using pacemaker 1.1.5-18.1 with heartbeat 3.0.4-41.1. I am confused on the correct syntax to use when adding a location constraint using the crm shell. I would like a resource to always run on a particular node. Here are the results of my experiments:

Re: [Pacemaker] The state of the sg_persist RA (SCSI3 reservations)

2011-09-14 Thread Dejan Muhamedagic
Hi, On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 02:11:11PM +, Max Williams wrote: > Hi All, > I am wondering if there has been any further testing or development of the > sg_persist RA over the last 6 months? > Link here: > https://github.com/nif/ClusterLabs__resource-agents/commit/d0c46fb35338d28de3e2c20c11d0ad

Re: [Pacemaker] Odd colocation behaviour with master/slave resource

2011-09-14 Thread Dejan Muhamedagic
Hi, On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 05:07:13PM -0600, Chris Redekop wrote: > I'm attempting to set up a master/slave database cluster where the master is > R/W and the slave is R/O. The master failure scenario works fine (slave > becomes master, master vip moves over)however when the slave resource >

Re: [Pacemaker] resource moving unnecessarily due to ping race condition

2011-09-14 Thread Andreas Kurz
On 09/13/2011 10:36 PM, Brad Johnson wrote: > Yes, the suggested approach has the problem when both nodes drop to a > score of zero the resource can not run anywhere. I have gone back to my > original "best connectivity" approach, but now using my own ping RA > which uses different dampening delay

Re: [Pacemaker] Stonith and "No match for shutdown action"

2011-09-14 Thread Florian Haas
On 2011-09-14 10:40, kari pahula wrote: > Sep 14 11:17:29 mgr-testcluster-2 pengine: [8218]: notice: stage6: Cannot > fence unclean nodes until quorum is attained (or no-quorum-policy is set to > ignore) 2-node cluster with "no-quorum-policy" not set to "ignore" isn't going to ever successfully

[Pacemaker] Stonith and "No match for shutdown action"

2011-09-14 Thread kari pahula
Hi. I'm trying to set up a two node cluster with stonith, but I'm having trouble setting up fencing. I'm trying it out with meatware stonith, running killall -9 corosync on the other node, but instead of seeing an "OPERATIOR INTERVENTION REQUIRED" message I get "No match for shutdown action".

Re: [Pacemaker] Can't failover Master/Slave with group(primitive x3) setting

2011-09-14 Thread Junko IKEDA
Hi, Pacemaker 1.1 shows the same behavior. It seems that the following chengeset has the problems. http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/stable-1.0/diff/281c8c03a8c2/pengine/native.c I could get the expected behavior with the latest Pacemaker 1.0 after reverting the above change. Thanks, Junko 2