Re: [Pacemaker] pcmk 1.1.8, some issues

David Vossel writes: >> > When do you see this? Is pacemaker fencing a node when this >> > occurs, or are you manually doing it using stonith_admin? >> >> oh sorry i forgot to say. >> triggering it by stonith_admin -l nodename > > Yeah, looking at the code that should still work. Can you file

Re: [Pacemaker] pcmk 1.1.8, some issues

- Original Message - > From: "Andrew Beekhof" > To: "The Pacemaker cluster resource manager" > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 2:45:56 PM > Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] pcmk 1.1.8, some issues > > > On 08/12/2012, at 3:45 AM, David Vossel wrote: > > > > > > > - Original Message ---

Re: [Pacemaker] pcmk 1.1.8, some issues

On 08/12/2012, at 2:48 AM, laurent+pacema...@u-picardie.fr wrote: > > Hi, > > I quite like 1.1.8 but I have some issues with it. > > > 1) something wrong with stonith-timeout > > stonith-ng[24816]:error: get_capable_devices: stonith-timeout > duration 0 is too low, raise the duration to

Re: [Pacemaker] pcmk 1.1.8, some issues

On 08/12/2012, at 3:45 AM, David Vossel wrote: > > > - Original Message - >> From: laurent+pacema...@u-picardie.fr >> To: "The Pacemaker cluster resource manager" >> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 10:13:59 AM >> Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] pcmk 1.1.8, some issues >> >> David Vossel wri

Re: [Pacemaker] crmd used all its file descriptors

If i remember well, this is old bug, has been fixed 2012/12/7 Piotr Jewiec > Hi, > > I have a corosync/pacemaker cluster running on Ubuntu 10.04.2. The > following error is getting appended to the syslog: > > Dec 6 20:44:46 filer-1 crmd: [2970]: ERROR: socket_client_channel_new: > socket: Too m

[Pacemaker] crmd used all its file descriptors

Hi, I have a corosync/pacemaker cluster running on Ubuntu 10.04.2. The following error is getting appended to the syslog: Dec 6 20:44:46 filer-1 crmd: [2970]: ERROR: socket_client_channel_new: socket: Too many open files Dec 6 20:44:46 filer-1 crmd: [2970]: ERROR: init_client_ipc_comms_nod

Re: [Pacemaker] pcmk 1.1.8, some issues

- Original Message - > From: laurent+pacema...@u-picardie.fr > To: "The Pacemaker cluster resource manager" > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 10:13:59 AM > Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] pcmk 1.1.8, some issues > > David Vossel writes: > > > - Original Message - > >> From: laurent+pa

Re: [Pacemaker] pcmk 1.1.8, some issues

David Vossel writes: > - Original Message - >> From: laurent+pacema...@u-picardie.fr >> To: pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org >> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 9:48:12 AM >> Subject: [Pacemaker] pcmk 1.1.8, some issues >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I quite like 1.1.8 but I have some issues with it. >

Re: [Pacemaker] pcmk 1.1.8, some issues

- Original Message - > From: laurent+pacema...@u-picardie.fr > To: pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 9:48:12 AM > Subject: [Pacemaker] pcmk 1.1.8, some issues > > > Hi, > > I quite like 1.1.8 but I have some issues with it. > > > 1) something wrong with s

Re: [Pacemaker] Enable remote monitoring

- Original Message - > From: "Lars Marowsky-Bree" > To: "The Pacemaker cluster resource manager" > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 5:23:07 AM > Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] Enable remote monitoring > > On 2012-12-07T10:38:44, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > > > > Uhm. Would "container" imply orde

[Pacemaker] pcmk 1.1.8, some issues

Hi, I quite like 1.1.8 but I have some issues with it. 1) something wrong with stonith-timeout stonith-ng[24816]:error: get_capable_devices: stonith-timeout duration 0 is too low, raise the duration to 80 seconds with 2) crm_mon crashing with this message : "Your current configuration

Re: [Pacemaker] Nodes OFFLINE with "not in our membership" messages

Andrew Beekhof writes: >> I'm also impacted by this issue. (running pcmk 1.1.7 and corosync 1.4.4) >> there's a closed bug report here : >> http://bugs.clusterlabs.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5040 >> as far as i understand it's an issue with coroync. >> >> Pacemaker 1.1.8 is supposed to have workarounds

Re: [Pacemaker] One Cluster or Two

On 12/06/2012 08:22 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > I like clusters with >2 nodes because quorum makes sense. Andrew, That sounds like a solid reason to prefer one, larger cluster. Thanks. -- Art Z. -- Art Zemon, President Hen's Teeth Network for reliable web hosting

Re: [Pacemaker] Enable remote monitoring

On 2012-12-07T15:09:09, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > >> Ordering: absolutely > > Would any user not like the implied order? Instead want an asymmetrical > > or some curious one? > Conceptually it doesn't make any sense IMHO. > By definition things cant be in/on the container if the container > doesn't

Re: [Pacemaker] Enable remote monitoring

On 2012-12-07T10:38:44, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > > Uhm. Would "container" imply ordering + colocation, or would we still > > need them grouped (resource_set'ed, whatever)? > Ordering: absolutely > Colocation is less clear, I think the default is no but David has suggested > an additional meta att

Re: [Pacemaker] Enable remote monitoring

On 2012-12-07T20:17:03, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > >> The one thing we've not addressed yet is probing, thats going to be fun :) > > I guess there should be some way for the nagios RAs to return > > NOT_RUNNING if there's nothing yet, no? > Right, but its talking to an IP address. > Once the guest i

Re: [Pacemaker] Enable remote monitoring

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Gao,Yan wrote: > 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 Beekh

Re: [Pacemaker] Getting Started

Hi Takatoshi, I probably did start the slave node manually. I think I'm getting stuck with not knowing how to properly manage start-up and shutdowns with the cluster. I can get it all up and running (somehow ;)), but I don't understand how to restore the master and slave to their original