On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 08:28:09PM +0200, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:10:18PM +0200, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 05:26:19PM +0200, Markus M. wrote:
> > > Markus M. wrote:
> > > >is there a known problem with IPaddr(2) when defining many (
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:10:18PM +0200, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 05:26:19PM +0200, Markus M. wrote:
> > Markus M. wrote:
> > >is there a known problem with IPaddr(2) when defining many (in my
> > >case: 11) ip resources which are started/stopped concurrently?
>
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 05:26:19PM +0200, Markus M. wrote:
> Markus M. wrote:
> >is there a known problem with IPaddr(2) when defining many (in my
> >case: 11) ip resources which are started/stopped concurrently?
Don't remember any problems.
> Well... some further investigation revealed that
Markus M. wrote:
is there a known problem with IPaddr(2) when defining many (in my case:
11) ip resources which are started/stopped concurrently?
Well... some further investigation revealed that it seems to be a
problem with the way how the ip addresses are assigned.
When looking at the outp
Hello,
is there a known problem with IPaddr(2) when defining many (in my case:
11) ip resources which are started/stopped concurrently?
In my case (CentOS5, latest pacemaker) the resources are starting up
fine, but when shutting down pacemaker (also during a cluster switch),
sometimes one or
