We have a master-slave setup for Redis, running 6 instances of Redis on
each physical host, and one floating IP between them.
Each redis instance is part of a single group.
When we fail over the IP in production, I'm observing this sequence of
events:
Pacemaker brings down the floating IP
Pacemak
On 25/07/2013, at 2:36 PM, claire huang wrote:
> Andrew,
> Hi！there is one question to ask for your help.
> 1、My os is-
> [root@2U_222 cluster]# lsb_release -a
> LSB Version:
> :core-4.0-amd64:core-4.0-noarch:graphics-4.0-amd64:graphics-4.0-noarch:printing-4.0-amd64:printing-4.0-noarch
Hi All,
This is just a quick heads-up. We're in the process of reorganising the
network:ha-clustering repository on build.opensuse.org. If you don't
use any of the software from this repo feel free to stop reading now :)
Currently we have:
- network:ha-clustering (stable builds for various dis
yes I feel the config has to be bit improved with Master / Salve concept,
or else what happens is when one server goes down the pointing one, the
other one is not propagated.
For this am trying to install DRBD and GFS, but the packages are missing,
am trying to get the rpm to install the same.
An
Unless anyone can show me a reason otherwise, 1.1.10-final is getting tagged
tomorrow.
-- Andrew
On 22/07/2013, at 10:53 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> Announcing the seventh release candidate for Pacemaker 1.1.10
>
>https://github.com/ClusterLabs/pacemaker/releases/Pacemaker-1.1.10-rc7
>
>
On 19/07/2013, at 9:38 PM, "Howley, Tom" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been doing some testing of a fairly standard pacemaker/corosync setup
> with DRBD (with resource-level fencing) and have noticed the following in
> relation to testing network failures:
>
> - Handling of all ports being blocked
On 17/07/2013, at 6:47 PM, K Mehta wrote:
> Andrew,
> I am using centos 6.2 and RHEL 6.2. Currently i have setup with whatever
> comes with distribution.
>
> 1. Are the components (pacemaker, cman, corosync) forward and backward
> compatible with each other..just in cases where i want to c
On 19/07/2013, at 12:20 AM, K Mehta wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a two node cluster. I have few resources configured on it. On vqa12,
> CRMd dies due to some internal error. It is not clear why CRMd decides to die
> on May5 at 22:14:50 on system vqa12
Its because of:
May 05 22:14:50 [3518] vqa1
On 23/07/2013, at 2:39 AM, Gopalakrishnan N wrote:
> Now I got one more issue, when I stop the complete pacemaker application, the
> other one node automatically projects me the http service.
>
> But when I stop the http service alone in one node which is pointing to
> ClusterIP, the page is
On 24/07/2013, at 6:40 PM, Tan Tai hock wrote:
>
> I did not enable fencing. I observe the process running and see that when the
> node is up, I will see the following processes:
>
> Corosync
> --
> /usr/sbin/corosync
>
> Pacemaker
> -
> /usr/libexec/pacemaker/lrm
On 24/07/2013, at 7:40 PM, Kazunori INOUE wrote:
> (13.07.18 19:23), Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>
>> On 17/07/2013, at 6:53 PM, Kazunori INOUE
>> wrote:
>>
>>> (13.07.16 21:18), Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On 16/07/2013, at 7:04 PM, Kazunori INOUE
wrote:
> (13.07.15 11:00),
On 24/07/2013, at 10:09 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-07-24T21:40:40, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>>> Statically assigned nodeids?
>> Wouldn't hurt, but you still need to bring down the still-active node to get
>> it to talk to the new node.
>> Which sucks
>
> Hm. But ... corosync/pac
On 2013-07-24T21:40:40, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > Statically assigned nodeids?
> Wouldn't hurt, but you still need to bring down the still-active node to get
> it to talk to the new node.
> Which sucks
Hm. But ... corosync/pacemaker ought to identify the node via the
nodeid. If it comes back w
On 24/07/2013, at 7:26 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-07-24T09:00:23, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>>> 4. Node A is back with a different internal ip address.
>>
>> This is your basic problem.
>>
>> I don't believe there is any cluster software that is designed to support
>> this sort o
Thanks for your answers.
Is it possible to configure corosync/pacemaker in this scenario so if a
node goes down instead of bringing the node back I can build a new one and
add it to the cluster? Building new nodes is almost "free" for me. Also,
what's the difference between bringing a new node fro
(13.07.18 19:23), Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On 17/07/2013, at 6:53 PM, Kazunori INOUE wrote:
(13.07.16 21:18), Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On 16/07/2013, at 7:04 PM, Kazunori INOUE wrote:
(13.07.15 11:00), Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On 12/07/2013, at 6:28 PM, Kazunori INOUE wrote:
Hi,
I'm using p
On 2013-07-24T09:00:23, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > 4. Node A is back with a different internal ip address.
>
> This is your basic problem.
>
> I don't believe there is any cluster software that is designed to support
> this sort of scenario.
> Even at the corosync level, it has no knowledge tha
I did not enable fencing. I observe the process running and see that when
the node is up, I will see the following processes:
Corosync
--
/usr/sbin/corosync
Pacemaker
-
/usr/libexec/pacemaker/lrmd
/usr/libexec/pacemaker/pengine
pacemakerd
/usr/libexec/pacemaker/stonith
18 matches
Mail list logo
