Hi Brett
2012/12/5 Brett Maton :
> Ok, almost there :)
>
> I'm having some trouble with VIPs either not starting or starting on the
> wrong node (so something isn't right :)).
>
> Lab04 should be the master (vipMaster), lab05 slave (vipSlave)
>
> (Postgres is up and running as a replication sl
06.12.2012 09:04, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
> 06.12.2012 06:05, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> I wonder what the growth looks like with the recent libqb fix.
>> That could be an explanation.
>
> Valid point. I will watch.
On a almost static cluster the only change in memory state during 24
hours is +70
d,e can be Master when A,B,C is down
2012/12/7 Andrew Beekhof
> location constraint with role
___
Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org
http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Gett
On 12/07/12 12:09, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Gao,Yan wrote:
>> On 12/07/12 07:38, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/12/2012, at 10:42 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>>>
On 2012-12-06T22:25:40, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> But any failures of the nagios age
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Gao,Yan wrote:
> On 12/07/12 07:38, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>
>> On 06/12/2012, at 10:42 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-12-06T22:25:40, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>>
But any failures of the nagios agents would count against the VM's
migration-th
On 12/07/12 07:38, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> On 06/12/2012, at 10:42 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>
>> On 2012-12-06T22:25:40, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>
>>> But any failures of the nagios agents would count against the VM's
>>> migration-threshold.
>>> So if moving were the right thing to do, i
On 12/07/12 10:50, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Gao,Yan wrote:
>> On 12/07/12 10:14, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Gao,Yan wrote:
> what about:
> container-type=(black | white)
>
> black: colocate with the vm
> whit
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Mia Lueng wrote:
> Hi :
>
> I wanna build a five-node cluster to run drbd
>
> Node A,B,C have a share storage
> Node D E have a share storage
>
> One of node (A,B,C) will be the drbd primary and one of node(D,E) be the
> drbd secondary and the data is set on the sh
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Gao,Yan wrote:
> On 12/07/12 10:14, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Gao,Yan wrote:
what about:
container-type=(black | white)
black: colocate with the vm
white: potentially other colocation or location constrai
On 12/07/12 10:14, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Gao,Yan wrote:
>>> what about:
>>> container-type=(black | white)
>>>
>>> black: colocate with the vm
>>> white: potentially other colocation or location constraints
>> Or just:
>> contained=(true| false)
>>
>> Detau
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Andrew Martin wrote:
> 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
>
> Recent
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:41 AM, wrote:
> pavan tc writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have now hit this issue twice in my setup.
>> I see the following github commit addressing this issue:
>> https://github.com/ClusterLabs/pacemaker/commit/03f6105592281901cc10550b8ad19af4beb5f72f
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm also impac
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:38 PM, pavan tc wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have now hit this issue twice in my setup.
> I see the following github commit addressing this issue:
> https://github.com/ClusterLabs/pacemaker/commit/03f6105592281901cc10550b8ad19af4beb5f72f
>
> From the patch, it appears there is an in
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Art Zemon wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I am building a high availability web hosting platform which will
> include a pair of web servers with an OCFS2 shared filesystem and a
> MySQL database server with a backup (using a DRBD-based filesystem
> instead of MySQL replication)
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Florian Crouzat
wrote:
> I cannot find any good place where to write this new content in Pacemaker
> Explained. If advised (in terms of table of contents), I'll happily provide
> a patch.
I reckon just before
https://github.com/ClusterLabs/pacemaker/blob/maste
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Gao,Yan wrote:
>> what about:
>> container-type=(black | white)
>>
>> black: colocate with the vm
>> white: potentially other colocation or location constraints
> Or just:
> contained=(true| false)
>
> Detaults to true?
Doesn't the set up a conceptual oxymor
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2012-12-06T20:11:41, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>> > In my head it's always been that kind of (join|whatever) statement with
>> > order
>> > and/or colocation as attributes, that can be optionally turned off. LCMC
>> > presents it this
On 12/07/12 07:42, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> On 07/12/2012, at 10:19 AM, David Vossel wrote:
>
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Yan Gao"
>>> To: pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 12:28:06 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] Enable remote monitoring
>>>
>>>
On 07/12/2012, at 10:19 AM, David Vossel wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Yan Gao"
>> To: pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org
>> Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 12:28:06 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] Enable remote monitoring
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 12/06/12 19:42, Lars Marowsky-Bree wro
On 06/12/2012, at 10:42 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2012-12-06T22:25:40, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>> But any failures of the nagios agents would count against the VM's
>> migration-threshold.
>> So if moving were the right thing to do, it would have done it already.
>
> OK. I think this
- Original Message -
> From: "Yan Gao"
> To: pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org
> Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 12:28:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] Enable remote monitoring
>
> Hi,
>
> On 12/06/12 19:42, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> > On 2012-12-06T22:25:40, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> >
>
Folks,
I am building a high availability web hosting platform which will
include a pair of web servers with an OCFS2 shared filesystem and a
MySQL database server with a backup (using a DRBD-based filesystem
instead of MySQL replication). Does this sound like one cluster or two
(one for the web se
- Original Message -
> From: "Yan Gao"
> To: pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org
> Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 12:28:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] Enable remote monitoring
>
> Hi,
>
> On 12/06/12 19:42, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> > On 2012-12-06T22:25:40, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> >
Hi,
On 12/06/12 19:42, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2012-12-06T22:25:40, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>> But any failures of the nagios agents would count against the VM's
>> migration-threshold.
>> So if moving were the right thing to do, it would have done it already.
>
> OK. I think this was du
Le 05/12/2012 01:38, Andrew Beekhof a écrit :
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 :
Ich werde ab 06.12.2012 nicht im Büro sein. Ich kehre zurück am
07.12.2012.
Please note, that I am not available. Please always use
"ksi.netw...@knapp.com", which ensures that one of our network
adminsitrators takes care of your interest.
___
Pacemak
pavan tc writes:
> Hi,
>
> I have now hit this issue twice in my setup.
> I see the following github commit addressing this issue:
> https://github.com/ClusterLabs/pacemaker/commit/03f6105592281901cc10550b8ad19af4beb5f72f
Hi,
I'm also impacted by this issue. (running pcmk 1.1.7 and corosync 1.4
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Nikita Michalko
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> did you already try to google on:
> "not in our membership" ?
>
>
Not sure which part you were addressing.
I mean, I did not pluck the github link out of thin air ;)
And if it is the lack of information in my email that you are tal
Hi,
did you already try to google on:
"not in our membership" ?
E.g. : http://lists.linux-ha.org/pipermail/linux-ha/2007-February/023469.html
Nikita Michalko
___
Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org
http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mail
On 2012-12-06T22:25:40, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> But any failures of the nagios agents would count against the VM's
> migration-threshold.
> So if moving were the right thing to do, it would have done it already.
OK. I think this was due to me still being stuck on the workings of an
order constra
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Rasto Levrinc wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 2:48 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/12/2012, at 9:05 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>>>
For what it is worth, I'd agree with this; the fact that t
On 2012-12-06T20:11:41, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > In my head it's always been that kind of (join|whatever) statement with
> > order
> > and/or colocation as attributes, that can be optionally turned off. LCMC
> > presents it this way, but it's lot of pain, especially the resource sets are
> > tr
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2012-12-06T20:04:20, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>> >> Does that make sense though?
>> >> You've not achieved anything a restart wouldn't have done.
>> >> The choice to move the VM should be up to the VM.
>> > If the fail-count of a nagio
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2012-12-06T20:10:42, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>> > To be honest, *I* couldn't figure out what "failure-delegate" would mean
>> > here. "So, the child delegates its failures to the parent as part of the
>> > child being ordered after th
On 2012-12-06T20:04:20, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> >> Does that make sense though?
> >> You've not achieved anything a restart wouldn't have done.
> >> The choice to move the VM should be up to the VM.
> > If the fail-count of a nagios resource reaches its own
> > migration-threshold, the colocated
On 2012-12-06T20:10:42, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > To be honest, *I* couldn't figure out what "failure-delegate" would mean
> > here. "So, the child delegates its failures to the parent as part of the
> > child being ordered after the parent? Uh? How's that making sense?"
> > ;-)
> No, its a resou
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Rasto Levrinc wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 2:48 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>
>> On 05/12/2012, at 9:05 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>>
>>> For what it is worth, I'd agree with this; the fact that the most common
>>> constraints are order *AND* colocation and w
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2012-12-06T12:21:02, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>> > If we want to stick with the terminology, "restart-first" (but -origin
>> > sounds better, so I don't feel that strongly either) as a tri-state (no
>> > (default), yes, treat-as-failur
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2012-12-06T12:39:02, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>> > [1] and it'd perhaps even be cleaner if, indeed, we had resource sets
>> > instead of groups, and could reference them as aggregates as well. But
>> > that may be a different discussio
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Gao,Yan wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> Thanks for the comments!
>
> On 12/06/12 09:44, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>
>> On 05/12/2012, at 11:27 PM, "Gao,Yan" wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> This is the first step - the support of "restart-origin" for order
>>> constraint along with the te
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 2:48 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> On 05/12/2012, at 9:05 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>
>> For what it is worth, I'd agree with this; the fact that the most common
>> constraints are order *AND* colocation and we don't have a
>> (link|chain|join) statement that adequately
On 2012-12-06T12:21:02, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > If we want to stick with the terminology, "restart-first" (but -origin
> > sounds better, so I don't feel that strongly either) as a tri-state (no
> > (default), yes, treat-as-failure (anyone got a snappy idea for that
> > one?) might make be advi
On 2012-12-05T15:52:43, David Vossel wrote:
> Yeah, I suppose you are right. I wouldn't have thought of these two options
> as being related, but we need that inverse constraint to force the restart of
> A. Utilizing the inverse order constraint internally makes the
> implementation of this
On 2012-12-06T12:39:02, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > [1] and it'd perhaps even be cleaner if, indeed, we had resource sets
> > instead of groups, and could reference them as aggregates as well. But
> > that may be a different discussion.
>
> I would very much like to ditch groups for sets, but ther
44 matches
Mail list logo
