Re: [Pacemaker] What is the reason which the node in which failure has not occurred carries out "lost"?

2014-03-10 Thread Andrew Beekhof
On 11 Mar 2014, at 4:14 pm, Andrew Beekhof wrote: [snip] > If I do this however: > > # cp start.xml 1.xml; tools/cibadmin --replace -o configuration --xml-file > replace.some -V > > I start to see what you see: > > ( xml.c:4985 )info: validate_with_relaxng: Creating

Re: [Pacemaker] What is the reason which the node in which failure has not occurred carries out "lost"?

2014-03-10 Thread Andrew Beekhof
I tried replacing pe-input-2.bz2 with pe-input-3.bz2 and saw: # cp start.xml 1.xml; tools/cibadmin --replace --xml-file replace.xml -V ( cib_file.c:268 )info: cib_file_perform_op_delegate:cib_replace on (null) ( cib_utils.c:338 ) trace: cib_perform_op: Begin cib_replace op (

Re: [Pacemaker] What is the reason which the node in which failure has not occurred carries out "lost"?

2014-03-10 Thread Yusuke Iida
Hi, Andrew I attach CLI file which loaded. Although loaded xml does not exist as a file, I think from a log that they are the following forms. This log is extracted from the following reports. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwMFJItoO-fVWEw4Qnp0aHIzSm8/edit?usp=sharing Mar 07 13:24:14 [2523] vm0

Re: [Pacemaker] What is the reason which the node in which failure has not occurred carries out "lost"?

2014-03-10 Thread Andrew Beekhof
On 7 Mar 2014, at 5:35 pm, Yusuke Iida wrote: > Hi, Andrew > 2014-03-07 11:43 GMT+09:00 Andrew Beekhof : >> I don't understand... crm_mon doesn't look for changes to resources or >> constraints and it should already be using the new faster diff format. >> >> [/me reads attachment] >> >> Ah, b

Re: [Pacemaker] ordering cloned resources

2014-03-10 Thread Andrew Beekhof
On 9 Mar 2014, at 10:36 pm, Alexandre wrote: > So..., > > It appears the problem doesn't come from the primitive but for the > cloned resource. If I use the primitive instead of the clone in the > order constraint (thus deleting the clone and the group) , the second > resource of the constraint

Re: [Pacemaker] Pacemaker/corosync freeze

2014-03-10 Thread Andrew Beekhof
On 7 Mar 2014, at 5:54 pm, Attila Megyeri wrote: > Thanks for the quick response! > >> -Original Message- >> From: Andrew Beekhof [mailto:and...@beekhof.net] >> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 3:48 AM >> To: The Pacemaker cluster resource manager >> Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] Pacemaker/coros

Re: [Pacemaker] pre_notify_demote is issued twice

2014-03-10 Thread Keisuke MORI
Hi, 2014-02-24 10:49 GMT+09:00 Andrew Beekhof : > > On 21 Feb 2014, at 2:19 pm, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > >> >> On 18 Feb 2014, at 1:23 pm, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> >>> >>> On 6 Feb 2014, at 7:45 pm, Keisuke MORI wrote: >>> Hi, I observed that pre_notify_demote is issued twice when