On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 11:09:03AM +1100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> If you put drbd into maintenance mode, we'd not perform any state
> changes (stop/stop/promote/demote) on it that could fail.
> That would likely do what you're after.
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Jan Škoda wrote:
> > Dne 6.
If you put drbd into maintenance mode, we'd not perform any state
changes (stop/stop/promote/demote) on it that could fail.
That would likely do what you're after.
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Jan Škoda wrote:
> Dne 6.3.2013 06:38, Andrew Beekhof napsal(a):
>> Nodes shouldn't be being fenced s
Dne 6.3.2013 06:38, Andrew Beekhof napsal(a):
> Nodes shouldn't be being fenced so often. Do you know what is causing
> this to happen?
I know that this shouldn't happen frequently, but not having access to
uptodate data is certainly unwanted and there should be a way to prevent it.
DRBD is quite
Nodes shouldn't be being fenced so often. Do you know what is causing
this to happen?
You can also set resource-stickiness to prevent the resources
migrating back to A when it first comes back.
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Jan Škoda wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm searching for a way to block stonit
Hello,
I'm searching for a way to block stonith until drbd peers are synchronized.
Otherwise when server A is stonithed, then comes up and resources
migrate back to A, server B can be stonithed as well, which results in
drbd array inconsistent until B comes up as well and synchronization can
fini
