Re: [Pacemaker] Making a resource slightly sticky?

2010-05-14 Thread Paul Graydon
On 05/13/2010 03:29 PM, Tim Serong wrote: On 5/14/2010 at 07:39 AM, Paul Graydon wrote: Hi, One of my nodes decided to throw a wobbly this morning and locked up it's network card for about a minute. Pacemaker came to the rescue, merrily transferred everything over to the other

[Pacemaker] Making a resource slightly sticky?

2010-05-13 Thread Paul Graydon
back across. Is is possible at all to make resources sticky? i.e. resources start on node 1. Node 1 fails, resources migrate to node 2. Node 1 recovers, but resources stay on node 2 until node 2 fails, at which point they'd migrate to node 1. Paul -- Paul Graydon Senior Systems Adm

Re: [Pacemaker] pacemaker with heartbeat

2010-05-03 Thread Paul Graydon
g/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf -- Paul Graydon Senior Systems Administrator eHawaii.gov - Hawaii's State Internet Portal 808-695-4619 eHawaii.gov p...@ehawaii.gov * CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are confidential. If you are not the intended

[Pacemaker] Email notification

2010-04-23 Thread Paul Graydon
m our monitoring platform, but was hoping there would be some kind of pacemaker method. Regards, Paul -- Paul Graydon Senior Systems Administrator eHawaii.gov - Hawaii's State Internet Portal 808-695-4619 eHawaii.gov p...@ehawaii.gov * CONFI

[Pacemaker] Monitoring node

2010-04-14 Thread Paul Graydon
ng up the wrong tree, feel free to tell me :) Paul -- Paul Graydon Senior Systems Administrator eHawaii.gov - Hawaii's State Internet Portal 808-695-4619 eHawaii.gov p...@ehawaii.gov * CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are conf

Re: [Pacemaker] Frustrating fun with Pacemaker / CentOS / Apache

2010-02-19 Thread Paul Graydon
ir, for example). I found that meta target-role in primitives that are members of a group conflict with the target-role of the group, so i got rid of these in the primitives. Tom In this case, no, it's not but thats an interesting thought. I'm going to knock up a couple o

Re: [Pacemaker] Frustrating fun with Pacemaker / CentOS / Apache

2010-02-18 Thread Paul Graydon
On 2/18/2010 2:10 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: Hi, On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 04:59:16PM -1000, Paul Graydon wrote: On 2/16/2010 1:04 PM, Angie T. Muhammad wrote: On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:21 AM, Paul Graydonmailto:p...@ehawaii.gov>> wrote: On 2/16/2010 10:48 AM, Andrew B

Re: [Pacemaker] Frustrating fun with Pacemaker / CentOS / Apache

2010-02-17 Thread Paul Graydon
On 2/16/2010 1:04 PM, Angie T. Muhammad wrote: On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:21 AM, Paul Graydon <mailto:p...@ehawaii.gov>> wrote: On 2/16/2010 10:48 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote: The first error doesn't concern me particularly, it's a known Apache bug relating

Re: [Pacemaker] Frustrating fun with Pacemaker / CentOS / Apache

2010-02-17 Thread Paul Graydon
dling e.g. the monitoring & automated service restarts. -- Paul Graydon Senior Systems Administrator Hawaii Information Consortium Internet Portal Partner with the Aloha state 808-695-4619 office 808-695-4618 fax p...@ehawaii.gov * CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

Re: [Pacemaker] Frustrating fun with Pacemaker / CentOS / Apache

2010-02-16 Thread Paul Graydon
On 2/16/2010 1:04 PM, Angie T. Muhammad wrote: On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:21 AM, Paul Graydon <mailto:p...@ehawaii.gov>> wrote: On 2/16/2010 10:48 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote: The first error doesn't concern me particularly, it's a known Apache bug relating

Re: [Pacemaker] Frustrating fun with Pacemaker / CentOS / Apache

2010-02-16 Thread Paul Graydon
king about setting that to be the IP address of the server it's on. Both seem to work, but I've no idea what it should be and what the implications of it being set wrong are. I'm inclined to trust "man corosync.conf" which tells you to use the .0 network address, o

[Pacemaker] Frustrating fun with Pacemaker / CentOS / Apache

2010-02-16 Thread Paul Graydon
ver a hassle there. The documentation does seem to make a large number of assumptions about what users do or don't know about pacemaker style clustering, and it's been far from a simple process to implement what should be a straightforward 2 node failover. There is no obvious w