Am Donnerstag, 7. März 2013, 21:34:47 schrieb Vladimir:
> Hey everyone,
>
> ---
> I built up a two node test setup using utilization attributes. In brief
> it consists of:
>
> node-1: provides cores="4"
> node-2: provides cores="4"
>
> res-dummy01 requires cores="1"
> res-dummy02 requires cores=
Hey everyone,
---
I built up a two node test setup using utilization attributes. In brief
it consists of:
node-1: provides cores="4"
node-2: provides cores="4"
res-dummy01 requires cores="1"
res-dummy02 requires cores="2"
res-dummy03 requires cores="3"
res-dummy04 requires cores="2"
---
All res
Thanks for the explanations Lars,
Any documentation on boothd usage with pacemaker on 1:1 fail-over scenario,
and/or external/sbd usage with pacemaker will help us a lot.
Regards,
-Original Message-
From: Lars Marowsky-Bree [mailto:l...@suse.com]
Sent: 07 Mart 2013 Perşembe 16:40
To: Th
On 2013-03-07T09:22:27, Osman Findik wrote:
> Hi Lars,
> We think that the third node will be in standby, so only corosync and
> pacemaker processes will execute and no resource will be executed on this
> node by the cluster.
That is true, but it will still participate in the corosync protocol
Hi All:
Nob questionwe keep making progress on pacemaker/drbd, but then find
something we've done previously is getting in the way of next steps. We've not
found a way basically to "start over" with DRBD (again, assume this is a nob
problem). E.g., currently we are getting "device minor
Hi Sven,
I tried to test your suggestion and executed corosync only on the observer node.
In my test "pmosidea" is observer node running only corosync process.
"pmidea1" and "pmidea2" are other cluster nodes running both corosync and
pacemaker.
I set no_quorum_policy as "stop".
When I killed coro
Hi Osman,
We think that the third node will be in standby, so only corosync and pacemaker
processes will execute and no resource will be executed on this node by the
cluster.
I may be wrong here but from my understanding and according to [1] it is
sufficient to run corosync only on an only-
Thank you Jacek,
you are confirming my assumption. I will see if disabling the rule
breaks anything else...
Best regards,
Sven
___
Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org
http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
Project
Hi Lars,
We think that the third node will be in standby, so only corosync and pacemaker
processes will execute and no resource will be executed on this node by the
cluster.
We also plan to use existing application servers as third node and they will
continue to run their dedicated processes. Is
On 2013-03-07T05:09:25, Osman Findik wrote:
> Hi all,
> We are using pacemaker with RHEL 6.2 successfully to manage pair of MySQL
> databases. Pacemaker is coming from Red Hat High Availability Add-on. Its
> version is 1.1.6
> Our need is to add an observer to this cluster but our existing serv
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Osman Findik wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> Yes, I added "pcmk" file under "/etc/corosync/service.d/" folder.
> Since you think the setup should work, here are the details of the problem.
> Could you please check for any problem? I hope I have given enough
> information abo
On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 22:41:51 +0100
Sven Arnold wrote:
> In fact, disabling the udev rule
>
> SUBSYSTEM=="block", ACTION=="add|change",
> ENV{ID_FS_TYPE}=="lvm*|LVM*",\ RUN+="watershed sh -c '/sbin/lvm
> vgscan; /sbin/lvm vgchange -a y'"
>
> seems to resolve the problem for me.
This rule looks l
Hi Alexandr,
I also tried that path but could not get progress. Since the existing packages
on RHEL 5.5 are too old, I have to update many packages.
And then I even need to update source of pacemaker because of "./configure" and
"make" problems.
Below are the steps I did for source compilation on
Hi!
Before giving details of the errors, my question is do you think a hybrid setup with different OSs (RHEL 5.x and RHEL 6.x) is possible?
Building from latest sources on both servers should also resolv
this, I suppose.
_
14 matches
Mail list logo
