That fixes the issue, thanks.
12.01.2015 03:38, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
I'll push this up soon:
diff --git a/lib/pengine/clone.c b/lib/pengine/clone.c
index 596f701..b83798a 100644
--- a/lib/pengine/clone.c
+++ b/lib/pengine/clone.c
@@ -438,6 +438,10 @@ clone_print(resource_t * rsc, const char *p
13.01.2015 11:32, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Vladislav Bogdanov
wrote:
Hi Andrew, David, all.
I found a little bit strange operation ordering during transition execution.
Could you please look at the following partial configuration (crmsh syntax)?
===
...
clone
> On 15 Jan 2015, at 12:43 am, Dmitry Koterov wrote:
>
> Sorry!
>
> Pacemaker 1.1.10
> Corosync 2.3.30
>
> BTW I removed quorum.two_node:1 from corosync.conf, and it helped! Now
> isolated node stops its services in 3-node cluster. Was it the right solution?
Yes. 'quorum.two_node:1' is only
>
> > such messages (for now). But, anyway, DNS names in ringX_addr seem not
> > working, and no relevant messages are in default logs. Maybe add some
> > validations for ringX_addr?
> >
> > I'm having resolvable DNS names:
> >
> > root@node1:/etc/corosync# ping -c1 -W100 node1 | grep from
> > 64 b
Dmitry,
> Yes, now I have the clear experiment. Sorry, I misinformed you about
> "adding new UDPU member" - when I use DNS names in ringX_addr, I don't see
This is good to know
> such messages (for now). But, anyway, DNS names in ringX_addr seem not
> working, and no relevant messages are in de
Yes, now I have the clear experiment. Sorry, I misinformed you about
"adding new UDPU member" - when I use DNS names in ringX_addr, I don't see
such messages (for now). But, anyway, DNS names in ringX_addr seem not
working, and no relevant messages are in default logs. Maybe add some
validations fo
Sorry!
Pacemaker 1.1.10
Corosync 2.3.30
BTW I removed quorum.two_node:1 from corosync.conf, and it helped! Now
isolated node stops its services in 3-node cluster. Was it the right
solution?
On Wednesday, January 14, 2015, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> > On 14 Jan 2015, at 12:06 am, Dmitry Koterov
Thank you. Now I am aware of it.
Thank you,
Kostya
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Jan Friesse wrote:
> Kostiantyn,
>
> > Honza,
> >
> > Thank you for helping me.
> > So, there is no defined behavior in case one of the interfaces is not in
> > the system?
>
> You are right. There is no define
Kostiantyn,
> Honza,
>
> Thank you for helping me.
> So, there is no defined behavior in case one of the interfaces is not in
> the system?
You are right. There is no defined behavior.
Regards,
Honza
>
>
> Thank you,
> Kostya
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Jan Friesse wrote:
>
>
