On 06/28/2013 07:22 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> On 29/06/2013, at 12:22 AM, Digimer wrote:
>
>> On 06/28/2013 06:21 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28/06/2013, at 5:22 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>>>
On 2013-06-27T12:53:01, Digimer wrote:
> primitive fence_n01_psu1_off s
On 29/06/2013, at 12:36 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-06-28T10:20:56, Digimer wrote:
>
primitive fence_n01_psu1_off stonith:fence_apc_snmp \
params ipaddr="an-p01" pcmk_reboot_action="off" port="1"
pcmk_host_list="an-c03n01.alteeve.ca"
primitive fence_n01_p
On 29/06/2013, at 12:22 AM, Digimer wrote:
> On 06/28/2013 06:21 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>
>> On 28/06/2013, at 5:22 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>>
>>> On 2013-06-27T12:53:01, Digimer wrote:
>>>
primitive fence_n01_psu1_off stonith:fence_apc_snmp \
params ipaddr="an-p01
On 29/06/2013, at 12:15 AM, Digimer wrote:
> On 06/28/2013 08:04 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> Under this model, not only do I have to find the time to write and test the
>> new addition, but I also have to:
>> * keep maintaining the old code until... when?
>> * probably write and maintain a com
On 28/06/2013, at 11:37 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure there's a huge downside in it for you?
>> Ok, lets take attrd for example - which I've been wanted to rewrite to be
>> truly atomic for half a decade or more.
>
> If it's rewritten in a way that doesn't affect external
On 28/06/2013, at 9:16 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> On 28/06/2013, at 8:10 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>>
>> On 28/06/2013, at 6:42 PM, Bernardo Cabezas Serra wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Andrew,
>>>
>>> El 27/06/13 14:44, Andrew Beekhof escribió:
You should see additional logs sent to /var/
On 06/28/2013 11:34 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-06-28T11:29:35, Digimer wrote:
>
>> In rhcs, you can control the fence device's action using 'action="..."'
>> attribute in the element. So for us rhcs migrants, we
>> expect that action="..." in the fence primitive will have the same
>
On 06/28/2013 11:45 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-06-28T11:20:32, Digimer wrote:
>
>> Yes, a failed "on" action would then fail the method. This is
>> sub-optimal as FenceAgentAPI says that only the "off" portion of
>> "reboot" needs to succeed. However, I don't consider this a show sto
On 2013-06-28T11:20:32, Digimer wrote:
> Yes, a failed "on" action would then fail the method. This is
> sub-optimal as FenceAgentAPI says that only the "off" portion of
> "reboot" needs to succeed. However, I don't consider this a show stopper
> because "on" action of PDUs simply means "re-energ
On 2013-06-28T11:29:35, Digimer wrote:
> In rhcs, you can control the fence device's action using 'action="..."'
> attribute in the element. So for us rhcs migrants, we
> expect that action="..." in the fence primitive will have the same
> effect. As of now, as you know, this is ignored in favou
On 06/28/2013 10:36 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
primitive fence_n01_psu1_off stonith:fence_apc_snmp \
params ipaddr="an-p01" pcmk_reboot_action="off" port="1"
pcmk_host_list="an-c03n01.alteeve.ca"
primitive fence_n01_psu1_on stonith:fence_apc_snmp \
params
On 06/28/2013 10:39 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-06-28T10:27:54, Digimer wrote:
>
>>> Basically, unless we can do this better, having multiple devices per
>>> fence topology level needs to be considered broken and might be better
>>> removed.
>> NO NO NO NO.
>>
>> Please do not remove
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 03:32:05PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-06-28T14:49:06, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
>
> > > If cluster-glue's LRM had had such a suite, it'd certainly have
> > > helped tons.)
> > It did have a regression suite.
>
> Yes, well, but it didn't test for LRM_MAX_CHI
On 2013-06-28T10:27:54, Digimer wrote:
> > Basically, unless we can do this better, having multiple devices per
> > fence topology level needs to be considered broken and might be better
> > removed.
> NO NO NO NO.
>
> Please do not remove this. I can not use pacemaker unless I can keep the
> po
On 2013-06-28T10:20:56, Digimer wrote:
> >> primitive fence_n01_psu1_off stonith:fence_apc_snmp \
> >> params ipaddr="an-p01" pcmk_reboot_action="off" port="1"
> >> pcmk_host_list="an-c03n01.alteeve.ca"
> >> primitive fence_n01_psu1_on stonith:fence_apc_snmp \
> >> params ipaddr="
On 06/28/2013 09:28 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-06-28T21:01:55, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>>> I'd agree, but it's not multiple ports on the same device, it's multiple
>>> ports on *different* devices. I don't think a single fencing agent can
>>> handle that - it really looks like someth
On 06/28/2013 07:01 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> On 28/06/2013, at 8:46 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>
>> On 2013-06-28T20:21:22, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>
It looks correct, but not quite sane. ;-) That seems not to be
something you can address, though. I'm thinking that fencing topo
On 06/28/2013 06:21 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> On 28/06/2013, at 5:22 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>
>> On 2013-06-27T12:53:01, Digimer wrote:
>>
>>> primitive fence_n01_psu1_off stonith:fence_apc_snmp \
>>>params ipaddr="an-p01" pcmk_reboot_action="off" port="1"
>>> pcmk_host_list=
On 06/28/2013 03:22 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-06-27T12:53:01, Digimer wrote:
>
>> primitive fence_n01_psu1_off stonith:fence_apc_snmp \
>> params ipaddr="an-p01" pcmk_reboot_action="off" port="1"
>> pcmk_host_list="an-c03n01.alteeve.ca"
>> primitive fence_n01_psu1_on stonith
On 06/28/2013 08:04 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> Under this model, not only do I have to find the time to write and test the
> new addition, but I also have to:
> * keep maintaining the old code until... when?
> * probably write and maintain a compatibility layer
> * make it possible to choose whic
On 2013-06-28T22:04:48, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> I think he did actually.
Well, yes, but the hg history or reading the existing code would
probably have been quite helpful. I'll take "not well documented", but
it's hard to say the rewrite was handled very well. But I don't want to
get drawn into
On 2013-06-28T14:49:06, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> > If cluster-glue's LRM had had such a suite, it'd certainly have
> > helped tons.)
> It did have a regression suite.
Yes, well, but it didn't test for LRM_MAX_CHILDREN or the secret
support, for example. So it didn't really document the interfa
On 2013-06-28T21:01:55, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > I'd agree, but it's not multiple ports on the same device, it's multiple
> > ports on *different* devices. I don't think a single fencing agent can
> > handle that - it really looks like something only the higher level can
> > cope with.
> True, i
Hi Lars,
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 12:59:22PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
[...]
> If
> cluster-glue's LRM had had such a suite, it'd certainly have helped
> tons.)
It did have a regression suite.
Thanks,
Dejan
___
Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker
On 28/06/2013, at 8:59 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-06-28T18:41:35, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>>> There's an exception: dropping commonly used external interfaces (say,
>>> "ptest") needs to be announced a few releases in advance before enacted
>>> upstream. (And if Enterprise distrib
On 27/06/2013, at 10:46 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> On 25/06/2013, at 9:44 PM, Francesco Namuri wrote:
>
>>> Can you attach /var/lib/pengine/pe-input-64.bz2 from SERVERNAME1 please?
>>>
>>> I'll be able to see if its something we've already fixed.
>
> Nope still there. I will attempt to f
On 28/06/2013, at 8:10 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> On 28/06/2013, at 6:42 PM, Bernardo Cabezas Serra wrote:
>
>> Hello Andrew,
>>
>> El 27/06/13 14:44, Andrew Beekhof escribió:
>>> You should see additional logs sent to /var/log/pacemaker.log
>>
>> Finally yesterday issue happened again.
On 28/06/2013, at 8:46 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-06-28T20:21:22, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>>> It looks correct, but not quite sane. ;-) That seems not to be
>>> something you can address, though. I'm thinking that fencing topology
>>> should be smart enough to, if multiple fencing
On 2013-06-28T18:41:35, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > There's an exception: dropping commonly used external interfaces (say,
> > "ptest") needs to be announced a few releases in advance before enacted
> > upstream. (And if Enterprise distributions want to keep something, they
> > have time to prepare
On 2013-06-28T20:21:22, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > It looks correct, but not quite sane. ;-) That seems not to be
> > something you can address, though. I'm thinking that fencing topology
> > should be smart enough to, if multiple fencing devices are specified, to
> > know how to expand them to "f
On 28/06/2013, at 5:19 AM, Lorenzo Sartoratti
wrote:
> Hi,
> we are using pacemaker since two years and we are quite satisfied: thanks!
> We have 30 virtual machines running in the cluster and maintained by
> pacemaker.
> When we stop the machines with crm, they are not stopped in parallel but
On 28/06/2013, at 5:22 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-06-27T12:53:01, Digimer wrote:
>
>> primitive fence_n01_psu1_off stonith:fence_apc_snmp \
>>params ipaddr="an-p01" pcmk_reboot_action="off" port="1"
>> pcmk_host_list="an-c03n01.alteeve.ca"
>> primitive fence_n01_psu1_on st
On 28/06/2013, at 6:42 PM, Bernardo Cabezas Serra wrote:
> Hello Andrew,
>
> El 27/06/13 14:44, Andrew Beekhof escribió:
>> You should see additional logs sent to /var/log/pacemaker.log
>
> Finally yesterday issue happened again. This time, node "selavi" was DC,
> and node "turifel" joined the
On 28/06/2013, at 5:30 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-06-28T11:11:00, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
Maybe you're right, maybe I should stop fighting it and go with the
firefox approach.
That certainly seemed to piss a lot of people off though...
>>> If there's one message I've
Hello Andrew,
El 27/06/13 14:44, Andrew Beekhof escribió:
> You should see additional logs sent to /var/log/pacemaker.log
Finally yesterday issue happened again. This time, node "selavi" was DC,
and node "turifel" joined the cluster. Cluster was in status unmanaged.
Unfortunately, I have no pace
On 2013-06-28T11:11:00, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> >> Maybe you're right, maybe I should stop fighting it and go with the
> >> firefox approach.
> >> That certainly seemed to piss a lot of people off though...
> > If there's one message I've learned in 13 years of work on Linux HA,
> > then it is th
On 2013-06-27T12:53:01, Digimer wrote:
> primitive fence_n01_psu1_off stonith:fence_apc_snmp \
> params ipaddr="an-p01" pcmk_reboot_action="off" port="1"
> pcmk_host_list="an-c03n01.alteeve.ca"
> primitive fence_n01_psu1_on stonith:fence_apc_snmp \
> params ipaddr="an-p01" pcmk_re
37 matches
Mail list logo
