Andrew,
Thanks for your response
My Questions were:
which version of pacemaker Is coro 1.4.4 compatible with.
can rhel 5.4 support coro 1.4.4.
Or can you advise the best combination for unicast support
OS (RHEL version)
corosync version
pacemaker version
Thanks in advance,
B.R.
Dhiraj
_
On Wednesday, December 5, 2012, David Vossel wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Kazunori INOUE" >
> > To: "The Pacemaker cluster resource manager" <
> pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org>
> > Sent: Monday, December 3, 2012 11:41:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] node status does not c
On Tuesday, December 4, 2012, Florian Crouzat wrote:
> Le 03/12/2012 03:27, Andrew Beekhof a écrit :
>
>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Florian Crouzat
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Le 29/11/2012 22:10, Andrew Beekhof a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>> Not so fast :-)
crm_mon supports
-E, -
The level of detail is good, but is there a question too?
On Tuesday, December 4, 2012, Dhiraj Hadkar wrote:
> Hello Andrew,
>
> I have Corosync version:
>
>
> [root@node1]# corosync -v
> Corosync Cluster Engine, version '1.4.4'
> Copyright (c) 2006-2009 Red Hat, Inc.
>
> [root@node2]# corosync -
May not be your problem (or only problem) but this statement needs explicit action for each resource otherwise it will try to apply the same action to all resources (promote): order o_ocfs2 inf: ms_drbd_share:promote cl_o2cbShould be: order o_ocfs2 inf: ms_drbd_share:promote cl_o2cb:startHthJakePs
Folks,
I have having trouble starting my DRBD+OCFS2 filesystem. It seems to be
a timing thing, with the filesystem trying to come up before DRBD has
gotten the second node of the cluster into Primary mode. I find this in
the logs:
Dec 4 15:50:05 aztestc4 lrmd: [1177]: info: RA output:
(p
On 2012-12-04T14:48:50, David Vossel wrote:
> The resource ordered set with the 'restart-origin' option gets us half way
> there in the constraint definition. We still have to build the colocation
> set between the vm and the resources so everything runs on the same node
> (perhaps I just ass
Hello,
I am running a 3-node Pacemaker cluster (2 "real" nodes and 1 quorum node in
standby) on Ubuntu 12.04 server (amd64) with Pacemaker 1.1.8 and Corosync
2.1.0. My cluster configuration is:
http://pastebin.com/6TPkWtbt
Recently, pengine died on storage0 (where the resources were runnin
- Original Message -
> From: "Lars Marowsky-Bree"
> To: "The Pacemaker cluster resource manager"
> Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 11:05:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] Enable remote monitoring
>
> On 2012-12-04T11:45:16, David Vossel wrote:
>
> > I am okay with this constraint opti
On 2012-12-04T11:45:16, David Vossel wrote:
> I am okay with this constraint option being implemented, as it is the basis
> for this whole concept. When it comes time to make this usable, don't make
> the abstraction people use to configure this relationship live at the crm
> shell... meaning
- Original Message -
> From: "Kazunori INOUE"
> To: "The Pacemaker cluster resource manager"
> Sent: Monday, December 3, 2012 11:41:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] node status does not change even if pacemakerd dies
>
> (12.12.03 20:24), Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 a
- Original Message -
> From: "Lars Marowsky-Bree"
> To: "The Pacemaker cluster resource manager"
> Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 6:59:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] Enable remote monitoring
>
> On 2012-12-04T19:48:18, "Gao,Yan" wrote:
>
> > > Yes, I think this looks good.
> > The p
On 2012-12-04T19:48:18, "Gao,Yan" wrote:
> > Yes, I think this looks good.
> The patch to the schema I proposed supports this already ;-)
So it seems that nobody had any serious objections to this approach, but
we were fiddling with details and can't actually decide what we like
better, if anyth
The group master-group has me a bit stumped as I'm not using a VIP for
replication:
group master-group \
vip-master \
vip-rep \
meta \
ordered="false"
I'm guessing that I don't need to define the group as it would effectively only
contain the master VIP?
Therefore th
On 12/04/12 18:21, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2012-12-04T12:45:05, "Gao,Yan" wrote:
>
>>> (Ohhh. Did we just find a use for a negative score here? ;-) Just
>>> throwing that out there. It'd fit the model we have so far, is all I'm
>>> saying.)
>> Perhaps to name another "kind" for order const
On 2012-12-04T12:45:05, "Gao,Yan" wrote:
> > (Ohhh. Did we just find a use for a negative score here? ;-) Just
> > throwing that out there. It'd fit the model we have so far, is all I'm
> > saying.)
> Perhaps to name another "kind" for order constraint instead of an
> additional optional attribut
Hi Takatoshi,
Yes I have seen your example, I just need to get my head around / understand
how the configuration works ;)
Thanks,
Brett
-Original Message-
From: Takatoshi MATSUO [mailto:matsuo@gmail.com]
Sent: 04 December 2012 00:25
To: The Pacemaker cluster resource manager
Subj
17 matches
Mail list logo
